Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1914-02-17
GOVERNOR STUART AND
THE ENABLING ACT.

AS told in yesterdays dispatche;
to the Gazette FROM Richmond thu
fate of the enabling act which vii
give the people OF Virginia right
to vote on the question of stale
wide prohibitions is il the hands ID
Governor Henry c. Stuart. The BIZ.
reached the gn"erncl yesterday and
he advised that he would take the
legal questions w.l;ch have bean
raised as 70 the p'oner passage Of
the bill and it's constitutionality un-
der consideration. The governor
further stated that he would receive
briefs from both sides of the con-
troversy but would not receive any
delegations. In this course the gov
ernor has acted wisely, as the ques-
ton to be settled is one that is of
a legal nature and the personal ele-
ment should not be permitted to en-
ter.
To properly understand the gov
nor's position we must take into
account his utterances when he was
candidate for the position which
he now occupies. Although not
compelled to make any statement on
the subject, as he was without op-
position and represented no partlcu-
lar interests in his candidacy, MI.
Stuart declared that he would sign
a statewide submission bill if 1t
was legally passed and Responded
to the test of constitutionality. Liv-
ing up to this statement it now be-
comes the duty of his excellency to
apply to the bill every reasonable
test as whether or not it meets the
reouiremens of the constitution and
laws which are already in force in
the State. This is, of course, the
duty of the governor on all matters
but more particularly so the duty OF
Governor Stuart because of the
specific conditions he outlined when
a candidate.
There are several pertinent ques-
tions which have been raised by the
opponents of the bill which appeal
to us as especially convincing why
Governor Stuart should refuse his
signature to the measure.
The first and principal one in
wolves the right of minority of
the state senators to pass legislation
affecting the financial affairs of the
commonwealth. Section No. 80 of
the constitution provides that no
bill creating charge upon the pub
lie revenues or renting taxes can
become law unless it receives a
majority of all members elected to
each House. Now the number Of
Senators elected to the upper House
is 40 and the affirmative vote of 10
members. who favored the enabling
bill, is certainly not majority OF
that body. The question then arises
as to whether or not the enabling
bill creates charge upon the State
and here the evideace is as conclu-
sive as that majority of the Sena-
tors failed to vote for the BILL The
law as passed calls for an election
which will be an expensive PROPOSE
ton, estimated at not less than
$4,000 1t provides for the pay
mcnt of the clerks and judges, and
all the expenses of the election.
Here is a definite concrete charge
upon the revenues Of the State.
On this point alone. waving aside
tie constitutionality OF the act, we
believe Governor Stuart has sufiic
lent grounds to veto the measure.
But on tt. question of constitu-
t;onalty there are some equally IN
t@retinc and pertinent points. For
instance, the clause in the bill which
gives the right to breweries ant!
wineries, already established, to
continue operation and to ship their
product without the state but deny
ing the right of other citizens to
embark H., tie same occupation is
class legislation of the very worse
kind, establishing a monopoly that is
cic&riy il. defiance of the State con-
st;iution. We arc 10th to believe
that aav eourt will uphold the right
OF the legislature to grant the Rob
ert Pcrtnel Brewing Company. for