The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-14
WE HAVE No PROTECTION.

WE HAVE NO PROTECTION.
After much palaver the Netes Leader has finally
lQrne out nthe platform that the only. objection
ii has to Statewide prohibition is its fear as to
the ability Of prohibition to prohibit in the city
Of Richmond. In this regard we refer our readers
to the statement Of Special Master Charles f.
Littlefeld. printed elsewhere In this issue. The
! c1cs Leader OF Saturday, in speaking of this
gentleman, said: "He is former congressman
ind a man of recognized ability, and brilliant
rarts."
The Ne,es Leader INDUCES in some childish
rage at the belief of the people of Virginia IN
the statements of their temperance leaders rather
than In It's own warped and prevented judgment.
Ii eloats over its ability to defy the law of the
State of Georgia, and in the same breath petu-
lantlI calls for an anti-shpment law in Virginia.
It says: "re knows and every one else knows,
that Virginia's greatest need is for an adequate
anti-shipment law. He knows and every one else
knows that the only man who gets liquor shipped
to him in dry territoryis the man who writes
O. telegraphs for It."
He and every one else also knows that the man
who gets Iiquor In dry territory for the conduct
Of a bind tiger gets It by writing or telegraphing
for # to 4 city saloon-tust as the city blind
tiger gets his liquor from the same source. He
knows and everybody else knows that the firm
Of one Of the big liquor houses of Richmond
sent to n person In dry Winchester offering to
break It's rule and sell liquor to that man
knowing and stating that 1t knew such liquor
was for Illegal sale Now the Netcs Lender's
for adequate antish4pInlnt-
law when # Knows and everybody else knows
that the impossibility of securing any temperance
teefalation has been due to IT'S own opposition.
ara that Of the liquor lobby and the wet press.
I, seeks IN shift the blame for its own work
T. cher shoulders which have accomplished those
reforms that II now declares good, about which
Il is concerned and to when 1t has pledged its
support.
An adequate ant-shipment law from travel
ing salesman Of the liquor traffic like the Ne'es
Leader, which will profit just In the measure
HAT It's anti-shipment law Is broken is indeed q
strange anomoly, but nos stranger than is to be
expected from this source.
And now that the Mems Leader Ia so sure OF
The fact that the crossroads barroom is gone
forever in Virginia" perhaps 1t will be willing
to inform its readers just what law there Is
that prohibits the crossroads barroom In this
State Perhaps 1t Will state thai the Supreme
court and an opinion OF the attorney general OF
Rave absolutely declared that the CROSS
roads barroom is not gone from Virginia; that
It. ere is no Mann law and no Byrd law In Vir-
einia az the result Of a clerical omission In en-
rolling the amended law That there is every as
surance that a defeat of the enabling act at the
rolls text week would be the signal for applica- |
tons for liquor licenses at every locality in Vir-
cinia where there has not been held a special
local option election Perhaps the Netcs Leader
xiii te 4ta readers the actual facts that there Is
solutely no protection to rural Virginia from the
crossroads barroom that 1t claims is gone for
e~er How about an adequate anti-shipment law
under those circumstances? How about local
option prohibition issue. when the area of dry
Virginia by one single decision. based on clerks
error has been reduced to practically nothingf
There is no Mann law, there is no Byrd law.
and the legal authorities OF Virginia have so
declared The Issue ois ono OF prohibition for
The entire State or of continuing the saloon
where 1t Is now enterenched and possibly Its
return In country districts where Il has been
driven out