The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-08-29
Why Does the journal Not Answer

Staircase ma eHCtoSeu d copy ol ~ iNtt'i
addressed to the Evening Journal, which I sent
them some days ago and asked them to ex-
plain, but have not heard word from them,
nor neither have they published my letter
If you feel DESTROYS of publishing the same,
or answering any question therein that you may
desire, would be very much obliged.
Yours respectfully
M H. OMOHUNDRO.
Richmond, Va, Aug. q.
Richmond Va, Aug. q, 1914.
To the Editor OF the Richmond Evening Journal:
Dear Sr,-The wet and dry question has at
tracted much attention and Is of no little I'M
portance | notice you publish letters and an
swers thereto on other subjects, so ] take 1t
that you will do the same on this subject,
I have read the editorials in your paper OF
today and of yesterday, entitled Lets Stick to
the Issue" and THE Saloon Is Not the Issue
note that you say the issue Is one or the rlght
to local self-government. There are others VINO
saw 1.-The saloon is the issue" Which is right?
Now. Mr. Editor do not want to be fooled
on this question nor do want to fool myself,
so am going to ask you to answer the following
question which I hope you will make plain;
What Is local option, and why are we enutiea
to ii?
I take It from your editorials and Mr.. Harry
ST George fuckers letter that 1T is local Law,
applicable to any one or more counties OF cor
porations or districts, or wards In such coun-
ties or corporations. because such law anects
trict or ward only, and the people beyond its
limits do not want the effects of such law,
Therefore It Is made local and confined TO the
boundaries of the county, corporation, district
or ward In which the law Is made. Mr. tucker
illustrates this BY the fence law, road law, etc.
Now | can readily see the Justice in this, for.
as I understand it. every man and every set
of men have perfect right TO do as they please
and do what they please with their own things.
provided of course. that such doings DO not
affect or injure their feowman; but II such
acts should affect their fellowmen. then, of
couse their personal liberty must be restricted
m such n degree as to conform 10 all such men
alike and this restriction is brought about by
the voice of all such men affected. Mr..
fuckers local fence law is good illustration,
for the fact Is that the fence, or the effects OF
II or the stock ii turns will rarely, If ever, be
seen or felt beyond the borders of the coun.y
In which 1t ia local law. But, If will fol-
low up the product Of the stock that the local
fence law turns, will find it very different.
for instance the milk law. farmer in Gooch-
land county has right to raise milk or no milk
and such milk and In such way as he chooses
under his local self-government laws and We
people in Richmond have right 10 interfere
as long as he keeps that milk in Goochland and
under the control of his local laws But, just
as soon as that farmer sends some Of that milk
to Richmond to sell, upon mail order or other
wise lust then the people of Richmond have
a right to say and will say how he shall
duct his milk business and whether he shah
sell milk or not; and II not satisfactory to us,
we will stop him. We have right to do SO,
and should do So because the effects of his
local or personal government are felt beyond
the limits OF his farm and his county and such
effects may work injury to people This
right of ours to have a voice In the manage
ment Of his personal liberty and local govern
ur~nt OF the Goochiand dairyman is not only
the law. but it is right and just: II is sef-preser