The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-05-02
With the State Press


An effort To have the mayoralty fight In Rich
mond appear as fight between the '@wets and
"drys" should not he taken seriously. Press
dispatch from Richmond saws. With the cleo
ton Of A.nsHe as mayer fer a term q two
years by a majority which exceeded his ex-
pectations tho e'vets' If Richmond haze sud
denly taken a brace aud are pointing to the
big vote which rolled up against Jacob I'm
lauf an avowed prohibitionist"
The situation in Richmond was very much
Ike that In AIabama in the race between
Underwood and Hobsou, The prohibition ques-
ton was injected by Mr. Hobson and used
by him actively and from all accounts some
~fhat bitterly and unfairly His campaign was
largely a personal matter, designed To advance
his ambition and build up his personal fortunes.
Mr. Underwood was not a wet" candidate. lie
did not Lot prohibition figure in the smallest de-
In his aspirations fer higher Office, and
those who sought 10 align him directly with
the saloons, did with the expectation that
thereby they would obtain political advantage.
In Richmond, Mr. IFmlauf, told.
ayowed dry candidate bat nowhere are
told that Mr., Ainslie was wet candidate.
~ matter OF fact ne seems 70 have based
his claims for recollection upon his splendid
record IN office and upon a promise TO continue
to give 10 Richmond a business like adm nsira-
ton. II some enthusiastic and oveszealous
dry" advocates threw their support to MIR
miauf and called upon temperance advocates
tn vote for him they did individuals and
not AS the temperance organization In this State
in Richmond. We have read the afternoon
newspapers published in the capital Tho
journal and the News Leader, and fail to
ind 1t either If them single word That would
Indicate that the temperance issue ms Il principle
was involved In the maNnr3ltY Gamma gn.
The Journal. IN an editorial on the subject,
said
The journal congratulatrs Mayor George
Anslie upon the handsome majority hy which
he out In yesterdays primary election. We
believe II was the universal opinion that he
would win but we doubt whether me most
ardent and Jealous Of his supporters expected
that his ma iorty would be larger than that
given any candidate since the present constitu-
ton went into effect, majority greater than
the total vote received by his opponent.
- Mayor Anslie is fully justified in regarding
his victory as an endorsement Of his a]mnistra-
ton nv the people whom he has tried to serve.
1t was that and nothing else lie haas labored
hard and faithfully for Richmond. Tine people
este day embraced the opportuuity 70 show
their appreciation by bestowlng n rcvard."
The Journal makes reference ~ thc PROFIT
hition question The News -l,eadcj's EDITORIAL,
which also is free from prohibition 4seusson.
has the following paragraph;
THE vote In Richmond vestordav loft no
room for doubt that this CITY acreut, George
Atnslic s proposals for business administration.
He has shown his caihrc: he has promised 10
work for municipal efficiency RICHMOND takes
him AT his word and gives him Gritty of
e.7s6."
As to the assertion that DR. James Cannon.
head of the Anti-Saloon league Of trs state.
dorsed Mr. Emlauf and, as the Roam ke Times
Of today says "distncty instructed the Demo-
Gratis to vote for Jacob Ulnlauf" have the
following telegram from Richmond, sent to the
World News today
Richmond. VA. April 50 aeslal-nr
Cannon was asked his position by yaiaus parties
during the mayoralty campaign and stated that
he was not voter OF Richmond AID could take
no part in the focal election and matter Of
fact took absolutely no part In II
Or, Christian SAYS he exercised his rieht AS a
voter of Richmond and voted for MIR t'mlauf
because he considered him TO be man of high
Christian character. bat gave public
dorsement Mr. UmAauf's campaign or made
any appeal to voters o support him.
The Anti Saloon league took part what
ever in the miyoralty contest.
We submit these facts to people Of this sec
ton OF thc> State. because feel that II they