The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-10

Such would be expected, but such
was not the case Mr.. Harrison OPP
posed the local option laws OF Vir-
pinia ,incompromisingiy and whole
heartedly. The Miller bill came to
yote--the bill designed to abolish or
to effectually nullify Nirginia's local
option law-and Mr.. Harrison voted
and ed for it's passage. Mr.. Har-
risen and nine others voted Tor the
passage of the Miller bill. that is
for the repeal OF Nlrginla's LEGAL
option law Mr. Harrison and his
nine colleagues in the house were de-
feated by the votes Of seventy-one
members who favored local option.
These facts appear in the Journal OF
the house under date of saturday
February "a, 1894.
He spoke Against II.
Mr. Harrison also made speech
and that speeeh was reported in the
Richmond Dispatch Of Friday. Fepru-
ary %. and of Saturday. February
"a, So opposed was Air Harrison IN
1894 to the principle of local optloh
that he spoke for a part of two days
against it. The Dispatch says:
"Nr. Harr4son's Argument"
Mr.. Randolph Harrison. 81 Lyncn-
burg, followed Mr.. Nelson aha mace
a very s.rong argument in favor OF
changing the law" fThis chahss
would have meant the destruction OF
the local option law He s7tid ne Was
opposed TO All sumptuary ieglS'atioh'
because he considered II vicious 'u
princfule and impossible Of execution
ana he believed the welfare or the
Democratic party would be promoted
by the proposed amendment tlnls
amendment, II adopted. would have
meant the destruction OF local optioh
in Virginia. as every local option siec-
,inn would have to he won before the
petition for calling the election could
be presented to a Judge. The require
uent of fifty per cent OF the voters
an siEnators TO the petition was sum
Gent poison to kill local option IN var
Sinia. and Mr. Harrison favored this
amendmento
Referring 10 =. focal option election
held in Augusta county some weeks
previous TO his speech. the Dispatch
quotes afr. Harrison as having faidi
HE thought this contest should be an
object lesson to the house, especially
as the leaders OF the party had public
Nv declared taa he was tnformed) that
they would start local option contests
In all leading cities OF the Common
wealth so soon as they had had the
proposed amendment Killed sn the
was for the purpose OK destroying the
right Of free virgfnians 10 exercise the
right Of local option that Mr. Harrison
was anxious 10 kill the principle for
which he fs now no erfhusisstico
He thought that without the negro
local option would be n dead letter In
the cities, and that the agitation of the
question only served TO keep alive hit
ter feelings, to debauch the suffrage.
and to seriously damage the business
interests Of a community, He ar
rued that the house should have show
some consideration for the men en-
gagged In the liquor business, who were
usually excellent citizens and Demo-
Gratis, ana who paid annually into the
treasury Of the State for the privilege
OF conducting their business shout
$500. 600"
Then and New.
IN 1894, Mr.. Harrison publicly op-
posed local option az being ''sumptuary
legislation" vicious in principle" and
Impossible Of execution The oppo-
nenss Of Statewide prohibition, the
liquor campaign managers. MT the head
quarters Of the Virginia Association
for Local Self 1overnment. in a state
ment published In the Richmond News
Leader and Evening Journal. under
THAR own title n few days ago, defined
local option. and that definition Of
local option was focal prohibition"
Yet Mr.. Harrison evidently believes
now that local option local prohibit
the safeguard of our institutions. and
tho indispensable ingredient of Demo
cratic government