The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-11
KEEP THE BALLOT CLEAR
NEWS LEADER BECIDTDs

1n.Iss original form as It passed the house
endelegates the enabling act provided that the
ballot 10 be used in the special election next
.Septeubar should contain the words For State
wide Prohibition" and Against Statewide Pro
hthtlon" The amendment proposed by the
senate committee on privileges and elections
end adopted by the senate proposed that the
sbsiloc TO be used should contain the words For
Statewide Prohibition" and For Local Option"
The Meas Leader. an afternoon paper printed
fusRfchmond Va, in long editorial yesterday
greatly beelouds the real issue involved in the
erctaou proposed to be held next September.
If declares "the issue is thus the present local
pnt.ors policy aEainse>one Of Statewide prohibit
don. The ballot to be used should be worded
accorf1ugiy. Those who want to vote for State
Atde prohibition should have the privilege Of
doingso In a manner unmistakabIe Those who
nesire to vote for local option should have the
same privilege" Again the Nous Leader asks:
s<Wnat reason was there for denying the voters
Of the State the opportunity Of voting the
precise issue-either for Statewide prohibition
Al statement of the facts will show at once
how utterly fallacious and misleading is the
argument Of the Netos Leadcr. The State OF
Virginia adopted nearly thirty years ago local
option law which gave to the people Of every
uaagisterial district, town city the right 10
call an election upon the question of licensing
the sale Of intoxicating liquors. This local Up.
f.14F ohoftf Iha
entire State of Virginia until the passage Of
the Mann law and later on of tie Byrd law,
which laws are both straight prohibition laws.
so that the fact is that the general local option
law has been SO limited by the Mann law and
the Byrd law that the whole State Of Virginia
lis under statutory prohibition except cities,
towns with population OF over 500. and certain
summer resorts and watering places; and there
are several counties in Southwest Virginia in
which the towns as well AS the county districts,
have tbeen exempted from the provisions of the
local option law by prohibtory Legislative enact.
ment A local optscn election cannot be called
III any~Tart OF the state excep. in cities and in
SQEns~of over 500
u is mot true therefore. that The 'Asue in
solved in the election proposed TO be held next
es4r.snser is between local OPTION and State
IA. ,,rorifi,ion The oxact issue Is Shall the
,,r,a.ent laws in relation to the licensing of the
1n.rr-ac.pra and sale .of Intoxicating nouors
rhut1uue in force or shall the manufacture and
sHe OF Intoxicating liquors De prohibited
,.,,ro,sso,,t the entire State nv the vote Of the
.sonye ~ rho entire state A fair estimate will
sh,w .,a+ pjnoteen.twenrietbs Of the area If the
ss,a,.xo, virginia has already been exennted from
a.. r,e-attor, of the local op,,on law and the
.,.r,,a have no ,,u,or "a ear . local on,ion
s-s-.so,, IN ,heaa nineteen. +,vcnfteths If the
xs,s,s u ,s absurd therefore n declare az
81. ,-e.os , oodor aoee IN the o;,otatjor tslor
,..,,,, ,+S oai,orial tba, .ba fxsue ia ..tbus +b>
vressnY local or,.;on ,olicv against one of state
wife nrohi,itio,
The precise issue is whether statutory pro
h,hs,,or which already prevails over ninctoon
twer+ieths of The State Of virginia shall no
extended over the other one-twentietb of the
State and thus become Statewide prohibition"