The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-18
THE CONSTITUTION! THE CONSTITUTION"
THE CONSTITUTIONS:

In 1912 our old friend the constitution was
made to bear the brunt Of the fight against the
enabling act In all the hearings before com
msttees and in the house and senate long
speeches were made for and against the con-
stitutionalty Of the bill Bat II not gen.
orally believed that any votes were changed by
these arguments.
This year alt argument before committees was
eliminated by mutual consent, aud the constt-
tuition was rot trotted out as a scarecrow until
after the bill had been passed by both houses
and gone to conference committee The most
jealous defender Of the constitution against the
wishes OF people IN 1919 vas Mr.. Hugh White,
hut when the bill was before the house for pass
age. Mr. White voted for it. despite his declara-
ton as TO its unconsttutionality.
The question of constitutionaly not
urged In the senate, except In mild way Bur
when the conference committee made its report
then the constitution was called upon to deliver
the people from the people, The cry of mono
the United States. rose from the patriotic
poly, violation OF the bill of rights and of the
fourteenth amendment to the constitution of
breast Of Mr.. White, and this cry was echoed by
the EreniHq Journal
The brief of Messrs. Walker, Cannon and Mapp
tears this contention to threads. by citations
from the decision Of the United States Supreme
court, which declare the legislature Is supreme
In dealing with the liquor traffic, it being clearly
an exercise Of the police power of the State.
Moreover the constitution Of Virginia declares
in explicit term that the general assembly may
make any laws it pleases 10 control. regulate. or
prohibit the liquor traffic II can create a
monopoly openly. if it thinks that to be the best
method of control. The dispensary Is simply a
modification of the monopoly method adopted by
Sweden, known as the Gothenburg System.
The constitution does not forbid a monopoly
in the liquor traffic, but openly permits it.
The contention made by Senator Early in his
brief that the act is unconstitutional because the
referendum is not recognized by the constitution
Of Virginia IS fully answered ia the brief of the
friends Of the bill 1t is clearly proven by court
decision quoted that the legislature has the
right 10 pass law, with the condition annexed
that it shall not 20 into effect unless acceptable
to the people to whom it shall apply.
Moreover 1t comes with exceedingly poor grace
from gentlemen who voted for the bill to rise
up now and declare it TO be unconstitutional.
But that is exactly the attitude of both Mr.. White
and MIR Early. Both of them voted for bill
which they now declare they knew to be un.
eanstitt.tioi How can they gtutify them
selves in this public way? Does not the principle
Of estoppel destroy their right to be heard on
thas point?
And If these gentlemen voted for a bill which
they now declare they thought 10 be unconsti
tutional, what weight can be given to their
claim OF uneonsttutionality In other respects?
II q man can vote for bill which he considers
to be unconstitutional In principle why can he
not agree TO q conference report, even though he
considered that the constitution had not been
complied with IN the vote cast for the bill?
Wherein is it more difficult to swallow one con-
sHtutional objection than another?
II as Senator Early asserts the enabling act
comes under section 30 Of the constitution, in
that IL creates "a charge" upon the public
treasury, why aid he not insist that It be re.
ferred to the committee on finance, that the
amount and extent Of this charge might be
estimated According to his reasoning any bill
which calls for any kind OF special election.
whether for bonds or road law. or fence law,
or the establishment Of dispensary is a bill
z which makes charge upon the public treasury
although the expenses are all paid by the local
community.
AS the friends Of the bill declare TO call the
expense attached 10 the proclamation Of the
governor charge" In the sense OF the eonstitr1.
ton Is absurd Every bill that is passed en-
tails "a charge upon the treasury II that stand.
ard is TO be established, for no legislation can
be enacted without some trifling cost. The Vir.
ciaiaa does not think the enabling act creates
aany debt or charge" against the State of vir-
GINA in the sense the constitution uses those
words. therefore. it did not require twenty one
votes for the legal passage. just only majority
vote
But tine contentious of Messrs Walker, Cannon
and Mapp In their brief that a conference report
even on appropriation bill does not of neces
ssiy require twenty-one votes is strongly sup