The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-07-23
No Such Thing as mo License
Territory in Virginia, Su-
premc Court Holds.
WHOLE STATE LOCAL OPTION
Omission in Engrossing Act Of
1910 Surprises Both Vets
and Drys.

iiiN'ItbiS 'tiih't VIC ~ - ''N ~ ''''h-NNN'
In 1905. imposing partial prohibition
ON Virginia, has been wiped OF the
statute books.
Since March 10. 1910. that Law has
not been In existence. Since March -
1910. there has been 40 ''no-licence
territory" IN the state. The elimina
lion OF the partial prohibition law is
due TO AN omission made by the clerk
who ensrossed the amended bill OF
1910
Tho elimination OF the Law. due to
the cngroasing clerks oversight, has
preme Court Of Appeals so there can
be not the slightest scintilla Of doubt
itS 10 the fact here published for tn:
firsj time. Tn" omission was discov
cred by Iohn ". Williams clerk pf the
iIods. OF Delegates ana Keeper OF the
Role OF Virginia. when he was en-
gagged in the task of preparing the new
l;w TO be printed.
II was thcn too late to save tho
awkward situation. The amended hin
had heen signed by Speaker Richard
Evelyn Byrd and enacted into a statute.
tir. Byrd evidently having overlooked
the cngrossing clerks omission.
A''r or IDid OPENED tp
No LICENSE TERRITORY
The amended bill. designed further
10 restrict the liquor traffic. and. which
was LARGELY q copy Of the original
BYRD law. approved March IL 1908.
woS thus made an instrument TO throw
down III. barriers ana open all the no
1ic.nsc territory TO license. in other
words. u authorized the issuance Or Ii
ccusc to engage in the liquor business
in every part o. the Stale. except
'Vh.rc after q local option election. the
community mad voted dry.
Ist Nj ma = -. Of tho n-icyIuui rG
Law approved March y. 1905 Virginia
was made no-liccusc territory as to
all cHccI% four specified classes o:
communities These four exceptions
were J. Towns OF 500 OF more popu-
latiou. . Hotels aud social clubs at
health resorts. 3. Communities con
til; lous to cities having police protec-
ton. i. Incorporated cities.
Thus. until last January when 4
imam named Jones came along from
pittsylvania, asking The Supreme Court
TO annul Il verdict rendered against
him In the Circuit Court of PittsyI-
Vania County. where he was convicted
of selling q gallon OF liQuoI from tho
small distiilery he was operating. the
actra! situation Was not known.
No SUCH THING A.
NO-LICENSE TERHrroH>
The plea OF Jones before the Su-
pre,ne Court was thAt there Was no
such hing a Iio-liucuse territory in
Virginia, and his lawyers directed at
;cntiun To the elimination OF the Byrd
law restriction. Attorney General sam
ucl ". Williams read the amended law
and forthwith threw up his hands IL
was compelled TO acknowledge error in
the conviction OF Jones the distulcr
"h.rcupon Tho supreme Court annul!cd
the verdict, ana Sent Jones upon his
way rejoicing.
So speedily was the case disposed o,
ing at q .inc when thc sessions OF the
Legislature absorbed public interest
TO the exclusion OF everything else. the
Eject OF the decision in the Jones case
WAS realized hy but few and did not
become generally known
The situation was discovered only a
fcw days ago by Rev. James Cannon
ana other prohibition leaders. and ii
occasioucd both astonishi--ent and con-
stcrnat!on i'm the camp of the anti
saloon forces. For several days past
DR.. Cannon and his campaign licutcu-
ants have been Investigating the cir
"umstances lcad:u,, to the elimination
by the merest chance OF the law which
had made :. large section OF tho state
no-liccnsc territory
Any QUALIFIED VOTER
WAY APPL, FoK LICENSE
\s matters now stand. any qualified
voter in the districts hitherto regarded
ms no-licensc territory may apply for
license to engage in the sale of
liquor. and under proper conditions
obtain it. The news wll bring vain
regret to many VINO would have ap-
piled for license Immediately after the
new order Of things became effective
IN March, 1910. had they known OF the
changed situation.
II was in the copying of section S
of the original Byrd law OF 1905 that
the fatal omission was made. The
engrossing clerk copied that section as
follows: NO license for the sale Of
ardent spirits shall be granted for such
sale in any territory wherein such
license is prohibited by law" Then
came the omission which eliminated the
no-liccnse territory. In preparing the
statute TO be printed, Clerk Williams
noting the omission, inserted imme-
d!atcly after the word law" in brack :
cts, the following: T"Nor shall such
license. for such sale he granted cN-
cept rs foliows:"l. And at this point
IN parcnthcsis. the keeper of the rolls
inserted by way of explanation:
c'Clerical omission in enrollingD
The Supreme Court declined TO take
any cognzance. however of this cor
rcction, holding that the statute AS en-
crossed was the law, not the statute as
printed after the Law was enacted
DEFINES ISSUE Bi;TWF:EN LOCAL
OPTION AND PROHIBITION
The immediate effect OF the location
OF the omission will be Il little more
clearly to define the issue on which tho
people OF Virginia are called upon to
vote in September Prohibition sneak :
ers have contended that the State was
already committed TO a policy of pro
hibition, having absolute prohibition in
the country districts and local option
in the cities or where police protcc
ton was afforded. The wiping out OF
the statute OF 1908, however. puts the
whole state on Il local option basis. as
4 license may now be granted any
where In the state where the voters
Of the community have not specifically
voted against II. The vote therefore.
in September will be directly between
the policy of local option on one hand
or State wide DrOhi ibition on the othcr