The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-08-03

4 UGUST 8. 1914.
Behold now what change! The
churches will not Fellowship liquor
dealers. ministers are expected to be
total abstainera, bankers raise OBJ
lection to serving intoxicants at their
bshQuets. the president Of the Uni
versity Of Virginia bars tntoxicants
from all functions on the campus, the
president OF the United States and the
| secretary Of State abolish intoxicants
from their private tables and public
dinners, and the secretary Of the navy
prohibits the use OF liquors by the
navy;
low a. the drunkard was In former
years. And properly so. for he makes
UP the class Of drunkards In the eiSa.
Insurance companies, railroad. sys-
TENS and commercial agencies dis
count the moderate drinker. Every
week receive blanks from bonding
companies asking Recommendation
for men who apply for positions re-
quiring bond. An invariable question
Ia Does the applicant use intoxicantsI.
IL he does 1t 10 probable that ne Will
not secure the position.
Forty years from now there Will
not Dc u ltSduNG0 HdAoth aA NhS
States, and men win marvel that their
Iforefathers ever licensed such an evil
They will look upon us with more
Amusement than we look upon the
temperance attitude of the past gem
, Grafton. He who opposes prohibition
throws himself against an irresistible
tide. Ths very stars lii their courses
fight against him. Temporary recess
sions smay occur, but the tide moves
on
Texas Election.
1.-The whiskny people In Virginia
are 1ubilant over the recent Texas
election, and are anxious to CAPITALIZE
the result for the strengthening OF
their Strengthened business But
Texas offers them cold comfort among
those who understand the two situa-
TONS Notice:
FIRST. Texas never had Statewide
prohibition and the last election was
not a loss of previously occupied ter
ritory.
Second. The election was not on
Statewide prohibition, but was q Dem
ocratio primary with the pronipltion
question involved with personal poll
tics. Had every voter in Texas voted
for dry candidates. the State would
not have been prohibition until an
other election was held upon 1nat
specific question. The drys control
the State senate and broke even on
the congressman at large.
Third. The wet papers OF Texas IN
dictate that the crucial question In the
governors race was not prohibition.
The Chronicle says: in the primary
election the State Witnessed the
anop,aIY of a prohibitionist strongly
supported In wet territory. defeated py
voters in dry territory who indicated
a. preference for an anti.
due to his land plank Is matter OF
speculation. This plank, IL seriously
undertaken in a legislative way. viii
likely succeed prohibition as para
mount issue The Houston Post. in
accounting for MIR. Ferguson's
nomination. mentioned first In order
his land plank. 1t says: Mr.. Fergu-
sons appeal TO the tenant farmers ns
which he made them believe his land
proposition was something IN their
interest caused a great many of them
TO Law aside their prohibition views
and vote for hila' The~Post is the
leading anti paper OF Texas ana
knows the situation thoroughly
wonder II the solons and Solomons OF
Virginia who are citing the Texas
election to support their weak cause
know what that land plank wasy
They ought to informed themselves
before they speak
"The largest UNCONVENTIONAL paper
In Texas says Texas had just closed
campaign of incompatible deceit ard
dirt. Months before 1t opened the ru-
raj districts were sown GOWN Win
| literature designed TO mislead the far-
| ,ners This was beautifully contrtved
TO line the farmers up with the liquor
| interests under a guise.' The plan IN
| Virginia Is to align the tobacco grow
| ers and the liquor dealers. but the rar-
mers OF Virginia object to the align
ment and prefer to choose their own
| company.
Case of Atlanta. Ga.
another attack is being made on
| the enabling act by those who cite
Atlanta, Ga, and avow that conditions
there are deplorably bad. Bear in mind
that:
"First. The people of Georgia did
not vote upon the present law; It was
passed by the Legislature.
Second. 1t is not straight out
| prohibition law. such as was passed by
the people OF West Virginia or North
| Carolina.
I Third Beer saloons and locker
clubs are legal in. Georgia. and they
let down the bars for the sale OF
liquor.
Fourth. The State senator who led
the fight in tho legislature against thu
enactment of the existing law recently
/ praised It's Statutory operation and
pledged himself to uphold its enforce
ment and to work fer federal law
i prohibiting shipment of liquor into dry
territory. OF the four candidates for
governor in, Georgia, no one advocated
return to the old system. If my able
and ardent friend, Colonel A. B. Will
| liams, Is correct in his reports from
Georgia. wonder that everybody Is
not advocating a repeal of the law.
He described conditions as being worse
than they are in Virginia and heaven
knows we want a change UP here
Fifth. The Judge Of the court in
Atlanta ought to be- a better au-
thority upon this question than
Colonel Williams, and on July IA.
1914, he wrote with his own hand:
my Dear Sir--In answer to your
inquiry I have this to say: The pro-
hibition law went into effect January
!, 1908. In 1907. the last year under
the whiskey saloons, there were 12.45s
cases of "disorderly conduct" and
6,5os cases of drunk on the streets
made in our city. In 1908 the dis
orderly" cases were $500 and the
DRINKS were 1850.
last year U913) the disorderly
cases numbered 1885 and the DRINKS
3,13s. When the great increase OF
our population Is considered. The de.
loraaco 10 ri a y,ln ana have