The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-19

Q 1ttt 1aAEfN. nor uiu nave any YUM
mupication with Mr.. Brock other than
/ the one which he quotes in his state
ment. But from the nkpst reliable in
formation which | could obtain, |
understood that these senators would
not vote for the bill without the
change in the ballot. without the ex-
tension OF time to 1917, and that GER
tain other senators necessary to IN
sure the passage OF the bill would not
vote for it without the cider amend
ment. and that the wine amendment
/ must he retained. The question which
the legislative committee was called
: upon 10 decide, therefore, was whether
3 il would agree to accept the bill load
ed down with vicious amendments, but
which would give the people the right
/ to vote. or whether Il would refuse to
accept a bill with such amendments
and go before the people asking for a
senate and house of delegates which
would enact such legislation as would
sweep the saloons out Of Virginia by
! July ]. 1915?
/ Vote Desirable.
IL was finally decided that II was
better to have Il vote Of the people Of
: : i1- State upon the question rather
/ than tn enact statutory prohibitory
law without that vote, and that the
committee would agree to accept the
bill, provided a fair electorate should
+ be provided. the date of the election
+ be retained for the fourth Tuesday In
I September and the law to go into eff
+ feet not later than July /, 1915.
Form OF Ballot.
The committee discussed the change
+ in the form Of ballot for several hours.
apd Ii was with the greatest reluct-
sflcc that II finally decided that it
+ would not be justified in refusing TO
accept the bill because of this change.
! Had n question OF principle been in
I VOWED the committee would have
fatty declined in the beginning To
consider the change Of the form Of
4 ballot, but inaSmnCh as the advocates
4 Of the change of the form Of ballot did
not demand any change in sections 8
I or 8 OF the bill. which sections de-
clare the result OF the election, the
Issue was not question Of principle.
but only a question of how great a
/ disadvantage the advocates of the bill
were willing 10 carry in making the
/ fight That is to say. that the bill az
! IL came originally from the house pro-
vided that should a majority of the
votes he For State wide Prohibition"
then IL would be unlawful to manu-
facture for sale or to sell Intoxicating
liquors In Virginia after May /. 1916.
| But should a majority of the votes
be Against Statewide Prohibition
then the present laws on the manu-
faeture and sale Of Intoxicating liquors
should continue in force. The advo-
Gates of the change of the form of
ballot from Against State wide Pro-
hibition" to For Local Option. did
not propose any Change in the effect
of the election. Should a majority
Of the votes be cast For Local OPP
ton" the result would be exactly the
same as indicated above should ma
fgaYsf h.
hibition." Those proposing this change
In the form of ballot were not willing
to be logical and TO carry out the
principle implied in the form of bal
lot. They did not venture even to sug-
gest that they would accept the real
logical consequences in the event the
form OF ballot should be changed to
read For Local Option" The logical
result would he that In the event a
majority OF the votes cast were "For
Local option" that the entire State
Of Virginia should be t,ftee more under
the operation of the local option laws,
the Byrd law and the Mann law being
swept out of existence. But nobody
dared to suggest such Il result of a
majority vote For Local Option"
No Principle Involved
There being no principle involved,
therefore, in the matter OF the change
1T would accept the handicap, placed
upon the temperance people by this
form of ballot. rather than to refuse
the bill, and in an official statement
published In several of the dailies of
the State the following declaration
was made.
with the ballot changed rs
recommended by the senate COM
mittee, the issue presented will
he exactly the same. viz: Shall
the present laws remain In force,
or shall the manufacture and
sale OF liquor be prohibited
throughout the State by the vote
Of the people OF the entire State?
This form Of ballot was not
adopted in the house bill because
II was thought by many that 1t
would be misleading. Be-
cause OF this liability to confusion
the form OF ballot in the house
bill was preferred. but the form
of ballot proposed by the senate
committee does not change the is
sue involved In the election. and
therefore. while this form OF bal
lot was not preferred, yet should
the senate and the house decide
TO adopt the amended form OF
ballot the legislative committee Of
the Anti-Saloon league does not
btHtNe t1at II Wculd DC JuHIlHeu
in refusing to accept the bill be-
cause of this change. 1t will
simply necessitate "a thorough and
clear-cut statement before the
people of the exact issue involved,
viz; Whether Virginia shall per-
NIT local communities to have
saloons and liquor shipping
houses to debauch not only tho
children of their own communI-
ties, but also the people of dry
communities. or whether there
shall be law which will prohibit
the manufacture and sale OF
I liquor In every hamlet, town and
city Of our great Commonwealth"
On Senate Floor.
When the bill came up on the floor
Of the senate for action the date
Of the election was retained. namely:
the Tourth Tuesday in September; a
satisfactory amendment was adopted
defining the electorate qualified to
participate in the election. the ballot
was changed, the wine and cider
amendments were added and the
date was changed to May. 1917.
Messrs. Early and Brock both voted
to make tho date May, 1917, although
they knew that the AntiSaloon league
had declared in an authoritative state
ment that "it could not agree TO the
change of date from May, 1916. to
7 May, 1917"