The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-14
House Accepts
After Fight

| on by the senate, was adopted yester
4 day by the house of delegates by a
vote OF 65 to 81. after two hours and
a half Of the most bitterly fought bat
tie of wits that has taken place on
| the floor Of the house this session.
| Claiming that the amendments &C
cepted by the conference and adopted
| by the house were unconstitutional and
gave n monopoly TO the wine and beer
| Industries OF the State that were now
In operation, Hugh A. White. OF Rock
bridge. made u hot assault on the ad-
Xocafes- the onference-rep
| lacking the honesty, and constitution
| altty, OF the measure and the consist
ency of the advocates OF the bill itself.
| Martin Williams. of Giles. patron of
| the enabling act, defended his position,
assisted by some of the ablest lawyers
| in the lower branch Of the general as
sembly.
| Immediately after the house con-
vened Judge Williams took the floor.
| II desire to submit TO the house the
| report of the conference committee ap-
| pointed by the house and the senate on
what is known as the enabling act"
The report was sent to the clerk, who
read il in full
While the reading took place dead
silence reigned in the chamber.
Minority Report Contested.
Mr.. oliver, minority member of the
conference committee from the house,
claimed the floor, declaring that he
wished to submit minority report.
Mr.. Williams declared that the ma
jority report was the report of the com
mttee. and there was no such thing.
under the Jefferson manual governing
parliamentary procedure, as a minority
report, and that any consideration
would dictate that this was right.
The chair ruled that there could be
no minority report, but the paper sub
mitted could be read as the opinion
of an individuals views. Mr.. Oliver
In defense fot he paper, stated that in
a former case the house had permitted
IL minority report. but it was found
that this was done in the case of a
confirmation report. and the precedent
did not hold in this instance. The
views of Messrs. Oliver and Holt. as
minority members OF the committee,
were forthwith read.
Then the fireworks started. Judge
Williams, as patron of the enabling
act and member of the conference COM
mittee, was recognized, and he gave an
explanation of the report in detail.
''At the outset. | want to say that
we have done the very best we could
do under the circumstances. he de-
elared The bin was passed by the
house and sent to the senate. where
many amendments were made, and the
bill then came back to us for concur
renee. When the bill was sent to the
eanate ii was emasculated. particu-
lariy where the ballot was changed to
in defense OF the paper. stated that in
Against Statewide Prohibition
The Issue In Clear.
Every member of both the house
and the senate have their different
j opinions on this matter, and II was i'm
possible to get them to agree without
a concentrated report of committee.
There are still many Objectionable fea-
lures to the bill but IL should be
passed and gotten rid of" He de-
clared that as the bill stood For
Statewide Prohibition" and Against
Statewide Prohibition" the issue be-
fore the people was clear and unequiv
ocal. whereas. amended by the senate,
it. was a clouded issue.
He declared the report or the COM
mittee gave the people a clear-cut
issue on the question of Statewide pro-
hihition and should therefore be ac-
! cepted. Amendments Nos. 8, 4. s. s,
and Q were practically the same
thing, 50 he did not go into their
merits.
In regard to the electorate, Judge
Williams said there was no contest.
and both sides were satisfied to adopt
/ the senate amendment. But when 1t
came to amendment No. 10, where
the conference committee, although
made up of four dry members. had
agreed to lengthen the time when tho
bill should go into effect extending
the time limit from May |, 1915, as
provided in the original bill to No
vember. 1916 a howl was heard. The
senate amendment provided that the
bill should not go into effect Before
May /, 1917. Judge Williams de-
clared the conference committee had
only met on middle ground.
I Mr. White, of Rockbridge.. declared
that this was something new, which
neither the senate amendments nor
the original bill provided for. and
7 the question was raised as to whether
/ the committee had the power to place
new amendments on the bill or were
their duties merely to accept or re-
iect This question WAS carried over
until later In the discussion.
/ Amendment No. | /, allowing the
manufacture of wine and beer in the
State for shipment ia territories out
side, was then taken up by Judge
Williams. The fireworks began.
As to Wine.
Mr. Weaver, of Warren: What per-
centage of alcohol is in wine?'
Judge Williams: Il do not know
sir. for haven't studied the ques-
ton
Mr. Montague, of the city OF Rich
mond: Did YOU have any authority
TO make amendments. or add to any
amendments in the conference COM
mittee under the Jefferson manual"
Judge Williams: Il think so"
Mr. Weaver: do / understand that
YOU think a conference committee can
put in new amendment? Is it not
the duty Of a conference committee
to agree or not to agree?'
Judge williams: That is something
the chair will have to rule on /
think we did have the authority"
Then followed sharp fight on the
question of how much alcohol wine
contained and it was stated that
wine contained from 7 to II per
cent Judge williams declared that
the amendment was merely to allow
Charlottesville and other wine man
ufacturing places to continue making
wine for the purpose of shipping it
outside of the State in stipulated
quantities; that none Of it could. I'M
der the law, be sold in the State OF
Virginia, or elsewhere. except law
fully.
Mr.. Weaver: "Can you defend the
principle of that thing morally?"
Judge Williams: Yes. sir; I can"
Mr.. Weaver: Then all I've got to
unv ;c ,ynr, wary