The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-03-12
No Case for Compromise Again.

Advocates Of local option consistently md per
sistentv insist that prohibition does pro-
hbt; that prohibition cannot be made to pro-
bibt. Why not meet them on this issue? Why
not put tho question to actual test? North Car
Dina sidesteps the question. So does Tennessee.
SO does West Virginia. Why! What Is the mat
ter? Are their prohibition forces afraid to make
the fight ?-Lynchburc News
North Carolina 'sidesteps the issue" SAYS the
| News. What element In North Carolina side
stepped? The temperance forces, led by the
AntiSaloo League. presented bill flatly pro-
hibtiug any importation of liquor into the
state. Did that measure sidestep the issue? The
House of Delegates acting thousands of Pc
! titions presented by the AntI-saloon League by
| a majority OF 103 to T. voted for the absolute
prohibition bill. Was that sidesteppngo Then
1 the Senate asked the Anti-Saloon League to shut
| ite eyes and take what the Senate had for IL.
The league of course, refused. The Senate
wanted the responsibility taken from II and
argued that the people ought TO vote again
on the question when n majority of over forty
thousand of them had declared their desire to
abolish the liquor traffic. Who was sidestep-
ping in that instance ?-Rchmond Nlrginian
Upon this statement of the case neither side
lodged the issue The Anti Saloon League
simply failed in its purpose. and the pro-tiquor
forces succeeded In defeating those purposes.
That Is all The News. however. has In some
way entirely absorbed the notion that both
branches of the North Carolina Legislature were
and dominated by the prohibition sentiment
that We may be pardoned for asking If The
Nirginian Is entirely sure that the Senate of that
Stpte is controlled by a wet majority? In any
event, the Legislature of North Carolina, a stall
wart prohibition State. compromised upon this
question, and passed bill which in effect legal
ICES traffic in liquor between out-of-State deal
crs and intrastate purehasers-with a semi
fonthly limitation as respect 20 the quantity
purchased, quite liberal enough to satisfy the
thirst of the thirsttest If a wet Senate rs 70
blame, then the more's the pity that prohibi-
ton sentiment strong enough to elect House
almost unanimously dry, should have proceeded
Sc strangely to elect Senate of a different
persuasion Our contemporary says nothing
with regard 10 Tennessee West Virginia. Is
1T so that the Legislatures OF those States COM
prise sufficient anti-prohibition strength to
vent the full APPLICATION OF the Webb Kenyon
law? We had thought to the contrary So
with respect to Georgia. Alabama and other pro-
hibitton states which have not seen fit to enact
drastic legislation designed to prevent the ship
ment Of liquor to points within their respective
houndaries-are they situated that they cam
not resort to expedent which would give
prohibition policies the sort Of real teeth that
they require. We think not and for that reason
we hold tina, prohibition forces In dry States
have not proceeded sufficiently far upon their
mission--that they appear to be hating
lard rresoute at critically important stage in
the warfare against the legalized liquor traffic
and puzzled to know why this is so.
! 1t lisa quite true that many leaders of the
| wet" persuasion desire drastic legislation UNI
iier the Webb-Kenyor law, not with view of
advancing the cause ~ prohibition, but because
believing that prohibition may thereby be rem
ldered an unpopular policy The News main
tains, however, that this is utterly mistaken
idea Indeed. convinced that just as
certainly intrastate commerce in liquor tend
ed to weaken local option in the confidence of
the public. will interstate liquor traffic as
affecting dry States. operate prejudiciay to the
of Statewide OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
News.