The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-15

thereto the pronts from all the sales
they can make in 'dry" territory, where
local sales are prohibited.
(l0.) There is no difference In jrfnci-
pie between local prohibition ESQ called
local option") and statewide" prohi-
bition, and the only difference in fact
is in the size Of the voting unit, and 1t
Is a self evident truth that every rem
edy for an evil ought to be co-exten-
sive with the evil and follow 1t into
all the territory where It exists.
G1) Hence, IL a man honestly favors
local prohibition. because of the evils
Of the liquor traffic. and not because he
or his locality gets monopoly out Of
1t las all those opposed to Statewide"
say they do), the only way he can hon
estly and consistently oppose state
wide" il to show that the tendencies
of liquor. drinker. and seller differ
with locality, and that the evils of the
traffic are not Statewide.
(12) If we carefully consider and
classify tho evils of the liquor traffic
we find that they. one and all. grow
out Of the tendencies of liquor. drinker
cies ar inherent and by no possibility
can be affected by mere locality. and
that every reason which would justify
a dry" vote in local election would
equally Justify q "Statewfde, vote on
September n.
C3.) II we carefully consider the per-
sonnet the arguments, the location and
other ear-marks of those engaged in
the fight against Statewide" prohibit
ton. 1t will appear with reasonable
certainly that they are identified d.
rectly or otherwise, with that Is per
cent OF the States territory still re-
naming awet" under local option;
that they would vote "wetv in any
local option election held In their ter
ritory; that as long as they maintain
that statue ono by which their Is per
cent Of territory Is "wet- and the other
SIS per cent dry" they have a mono
POLY Of which statewide" prohibition
would deprive them: and that the only
reason they are so loud in favor of
tSlecals prohibition 10 (prima facie).
because under 1t they can maintain this
status quo.
t14) II we carefully consider the ar
guments of those opposed to State
wide" We find them conciusively dis
credited. We have dealt with the prtn-
ciple Of local seif-government" in
paragraphs and 5. In addition, we
ask would you deal with questions of
public morality and decency'' by the
same local" authority which author
Ices county bonds for local improve
ments? Would you make the sale of
cocaine. carrying concealed weapons,
adultery, the criminal character of any
present felony or .rnisdemeanar. depend
upon the various standards and un-
certain Judgment Of small voting units,
thus destroying all UNIFORMITY in
4
the State and at the same time make
morality and decency" depend upon
the power of q small voting unit to
resist POWERFUL LOCAL INTERESTS
WHOSE STANDARD OF DECENCY
ARE FIXED BY THE DOLLAR POL
ICYs Is not the fact that the only
@wets territory In the State us per
cent?. is to be found only in the cities
where the organized power and In
fiuence, direct and indirect. of the liquor
traffic, Is located land generally in
close alliance with the dominant poll.
teal machine); while all the rest of the
State ts5 per cent?. which Is practically
free from this power and influence, is
~dry,- and the fact that this condition
and alignment exist practically all over
the United States fmore than two.
thirds Of which Is dry" under local
or Statewide prohibition): are not
these facts conclusive proof that the
people have condemned the liquor
traffic as against morality and de.
cency' In every locality where the
organised power Of the traffic itself has
not been strong enough to override and
Suppress tho will of the people?
(15.) Another prohibition argu-
ment tmuch relied on by the Roanoke
oil -
1t. In paragraph 2 we stated the sell
evident truth that no honest local
prohibitiontst could oppose Statewide
and be consistent. unless he could show
that the evils were local" and not
statewide" For the purpose of show
Ing this distinction So necessary to
save their face. the anti-prohibitionists
make several contentious, some OF
which are consistent with support OF
local prohibition. but are untrue
while others are wholly Inconsistent
even II true. Let US examine the con-
tentions: (a) They say that the evils
are not statewide" because cities have
police protection while the country has
his r. -corrsfst-nt= n true.- 1t MD
mits the Tendencies Of liquor, drinker
and seller" are all bad on the face of It.
for 1t admits that the traffic cannot
be conducted without police protection
for the public. and il assumes (what Is
not true), that the police can and do
reach and suppress all the evils. AS
matter of common knowledge, the
police only reach and suppress the dis
orderly drunk. after he becomes drunk
on the street and take him to prison
and this Is minor evil. and they do
not and cannot reach or mitigate the
anteceaent conditions Of which this
- -
suit; for instance. that man, before he
became q ''disorderlv drunk" or his
manhood was seduced by the saloon
was q good son, husband, father, citi-
zen and efficient worker--a unit in the
community making tho whole of II
better. He had tendency" to drink
IA practically universal tendency, says