The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-14
NOW TO Tile prcopLE.


enabling act will make possible an cleo
ton by which, tho future OF virginia's
temperance policy viii in large meas
uro be shaped.
/ We trust our readers understand the
bill rs agreed upon yesterday. Apart
1 from tho provisions for tho petition OF
voters. the calling OF tho election ana
| so forth, tho bin STIMULATES that if a
majority OF tho voters favor state
wide prohibition il shall DO unlawful.
after November 1. 1916. to manufacture
sell or dispose OF certain intoxicants In
| the State. No penalties arc attached
10 tho law and no provision for It's
enforcement is made. this being left to
the Assembly OF 1916. Cider Is 10 be
made and sold rs heretofore. Those
now licensed TO mako beer and wine
art not 10 be disturbed, except that
they must transport their product In
tho original package beyond the state
10 territory in which liquor may law.
fully he sold. No by-products OF beer.
cider or wine arc to be manufactured
If they contain q larger percentage OF
alcohol than the original.
This bill IS unfair In its phrasing,
IN that X presents 10 tho people OF vir-
ginia n ballot FOR" and against"
state wide prohibition. by any rca-
sonablo construction, this would mean
that the State was TO he altogether
dry or altogether wet" But rs Il
matter Of fact. this is not tho alter
native presented. The voter is to
choose between the policy OF state wido
prohibition and one or local option
between no-licepse In any locality ana
the maintenance Of IL system by which
each locality liz permitted TO decide
whether II Will authorize or prohibit
the sale OF intoNicants. TO our mind
and wo say it with all respect to the
General Assembly-thcre can he no cx-
cuse for the form OF the ballot as
adorted beyond n manifest purpose 10
attract voters TO prohibition by giving
them no other choice than directly to
vote against" IT.
But tho bin is moro discriminatory
TN It's provisions than 1t IS unfair I'm the
form of ballot It prescribeE We refer
of course, TO it's remarkable concessions
TO c'der-malScrs, winners and brewers
II is scarcely necessary, we presume
TO point out that tho requirements OF
the law cannot be carried our. The OK
porting State has no right to prescribe
Tho destination OF any commodity, once
TINT commodity be committed to inter
state commerce. Neither the Webb
Kenyon net nor any other Federal
statute adequately covers such traffic
rs Is proposed. This section Of the law
cannot be other than farce: tho stipu-
lation that Virginia beer ana vino are
70 be sold only In wet TERRITORY
seems TO us so palpablc an effort to
save the face OF certain propagandists
and to deceive the unthinlSlng MS 10 he
unworthy OF discussion.
Passing by this feature or tho hill
then, what do we find? The pcople or
Virginia are to vote on a measure
which will legal!ze In Virginia a mo-
nopoly dangerous in itself and almost
uncomfortable ut law. The number OF
brewers and winners. who arc authoriz-
ed to manufacture and to ship beyond
the state, cannot be increased by the
issuance OF new licenses. They will
have tho exclusive privilege or doing
"nslhess without competition, provided
they transport all their products out
side Virginia. Does amy one really pre-
sumo that this section OF the law will
be observed? Does any one tako II
seriously? Breweries I'm n prohibition
State cannot be honest If they tried
and cannot adequately pc supervised.
Inevitably they VIII supply those with
Ia As well US those without the state.
BESIDES presenting an unfair ballot
and making gross DETERMINATIONS. thfs
bin is. To- our mind. unconstitutional I'm
several respects. Above all else, II cs-
tablishes the principle Of the refercn-
DUN. which. however desirable IL NAV
bc III itself. is not now recognized by
tho Constitution of Virginia. This
| alone-and 1t Is but one OF several legal
, objections to the bill-reauires that the
whole measure be contested In the
courts.
The Times Dispatch would not have
/ approved any enabling act that could
have been passed by this Assembly. we
would have been forced TO opposition.
! not because we are the enemies OF nro-
I hihition, but because we arc the friends
I OF local option. We want to help In
any advance Of genuine sobriety. but
we do not believe that the people OF
/ Virginia are Yet united in behalf of
I prohibition with that solidarity which
IS necessary for tho enforcement OF the
law.
But OF all the enabling acts mat
could have been devised. we regret 10
express the opinion chat tho one pass
ca yesterday was as unjust. discr.m-
mating ana undesirable rs any that
could have been approved bv the
worthy members .: the General As
scmbly.
Viewing this particular measure az
we do. and regarding Virginia as not
ready for Statewide prohibition. we
shall urge that this measure b. tested
IN tho courts. and we shall. during the
progress Of the campaign. explain 20
our readers why we regard tho pros
pect OF prohibition" as far less de-
sirable at present than the continuance