Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1914-09-18

provision it is admitted by the Roa-
noke Times, (chief exponent OF anti
prohibition) that S5 per cent Of the
states territory has already PRO
HIBITED the sale of liquor therein,
while 10 per cent, embracing the
cities of the state), has retained the
licensed saloon. In other words, as
to towns of less than 500 the legisla-
ture performed its duties iteself,
(without regard to local sentiment in
those towns), and as to all other ter
ritory it shifted and delegated it's
duty, which shows that primarily the
duty belonged to the legislature and
was state wide" and not local.
9.-When it came to the perform.
ance of this delegated duty by the
several voting units, 85 per cent of the
state voted that the licensed liquor
traffic was against morality and de-
cency," and the only part of the state,
(the large cities), that decided other
wise, was that which derived large
local revenue and profit from the
trafiic-the cities get the revenue, and
the city liquor dealers get a monop.
oily of the liquor traffic; that is, in
stead of having the profits of a local
demand and sales, hey have added
thereto the profits from all the sales
they can make in "dry" territory,
where local sales are prohibited.
10. There is no difference in principle
between local prohibition, (socalled
local option), and state wide prohibit
ton and the only difference in fact
is in the size of the voting unit; and
it is self evident truth that every
remedy for an evil ought to be CO.
extensive with the evil and follow il
into all the territory where it exists
n.-Hence, if n man honestly ia
vOrs local prohibition because of the
evils of the liquor traffic, and not be-
cause he or his locality gets monop-
oily out of it, las all those opposed
to estate wide" say they do), the
only way he can honestly and consis.
tently oppose estate wide" is to show
that the tendencies of liquor, drink.
err and seller" differ with locality
and that the evils of the traffic are
not state wide.
Eff we carefully consider anc
classify the evils of the liquor traffi,
we find that they one and all grow
out of tendencies of liquor drinker 6
seller" and that all these tenden.
cies are inherent and by no possibility
can be affected by mere locality ant
that every reason which would JUS
tify "dry" vote in a local option
election would equally justify "stat.
wide" vote on September %.
13-If we carefully consider the
personnel, the arguments, the loca.
ton, and other earmarks of those en-.
gagged in the fight against Estate
wide" prohibition, it will appear with
reasonable certainty that they are
identified, directly or otherwise, with
that 10 per cent of the states terri.
tory still remaining "wet" under 40.
cali" that they would vote "wet" in
any local option election held in their
territory; that as long as they car
maitain that status quo by which
their Is per cent of territory is "wet'
and the other 85 per cent "dry.'
they have monopoly of which state
wlde prohibltlon would deprive them
and that the only reason they are SO
loud in favor of "local" prohibition
is prima facie, because under it they
can maintain this status quo.
14.-If we carefully consider the
arguments of those opposed to state
wide prohibition, we find them con-
clusively discredited. We have dealt
with the principle of Local Self
Government" in paragraphs z and
In addition, we ask, would you deal
with questions of public morality
and decency" by the same "local''
authority which authorizes county
bonds for local improvements Would
you make the sale of cocain, carry
ing concealed weapons, adultery, or
tho criminal obo,a o1o..