The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-09-24
Richmondfs Wet Newspapers
and Statewide Prohibition

in this weeks Christian Advocate as
follows.
! The unrelen:ing hostility of the
wet newspapers of Richmond to
Statewide prohibition is so great that
III cannot be hidden. but breaks forth
from iime to time showing the real
spirit of those in control vi those
papers. They have pTofessed their
willingness that prohibition shall he
given fair ca trial. whatever t.lat
may meau. hut they hate the Anti
Sa foon League headers, and the re
suits which have followed their work,
and they cannot speak even peace
fully. not to say respectfully, coacern-
ing them.
1'ae News lAader has not said very
much recently, bur III" inlcs-Dic-
patch has printed vicious. contempt
BILE and slanderous editorials every
now and then. ~ 81, While thev at
tackled nc one by name, We're filled
with COW ard!y an sneai<ing irsin"a-
ions and ref'c,fioHs upon the league
workers The folioN:ng Is char
acteristic ut.eranrP. ANA shows that
prejudice and vcnn3n st eDthroned
In the editorial chair:
THE best men stand n good chance
10 lie chosen. and the disingcneous
rawlings of the professional howlcrs
and whoopers may not prevail At
least. we hope So After all it is
for Virginia to say whether she will
consult her own interests or continue
to lend herself to the enterprise OF
keeping certain prosecuted but highly
vocal souls on TIM. poyroll.
This statement Is dripping With
venom. 1t is concentrated malicious
SANDER. II Is "a bold, arrogant insult
10 every prohibition subscriber to the
paper. 1t is defiant sheer from n
creature full OF gall raging inwardly
and "foaming ont his own shame"
The purpose of this editorial and the
others of the series was to prevent
the defeat of tsne men running for the
Senate who had not only voted
against the Ena bling Act but had at
tackled the Anti-Saloon League. These
men the Leagle was fighting in order
that they might not even hinder the
passage of proper prohibition law
next winter, and the overwhelming
defeat of these men showed that the
work of professional howlers and
whoopers" of the League was heartily
approved by the voters Of Virginia.
TO the narrow malicious mind
whfch writes such editorials, the State
wide Prohibition Movement is not a
great movement. expressing the de-
termination Of the united Church of
God, that the partnership of the cit
liens Of Virginia with the liquor traf-
fSc shall be destroyed, and the traffic
be outlawed. and the business be made
criminal The range of vision Of such
writer Is SO limited that he cannot
realize the worldwide attack upon al
cohol and its results. He sees only
n few individuals in Virginia, and he
concentrates all the bitterness and
rage of his defeated self and defeated
newspa per upon these men, and in
suits the intelligence of the pro'nibi-
ton people of Virginia by declaring
that these chosen leaders are "disin-
, ermous.' that they indulge in ray
, ings'; that they are professional
whoopers and howlers'', that the Anti
saloon League Of Virginia is not work
ing for the interest of Virginia, but
that it is IAN enterprise of keeping
certain persecused but highlykoca
, souls on the payroll.
Who now authorizes and now de-
; termines the editorial policy If the
Times Dispatch? For many years ii
was owned by the Bryaas. and the
i, people Of Virginia knew them and
their position. But who was it that
directed the fight of the Times Dis
patch against Statewide prohibition
t in the campaign of last year. and who
authorizes these attacks upon tho
F.. league?
I 1t has been understood that the
iowners of the Times-Dispatch are the
, Winston Brothers. of Virginia and an.
) either party from New York. DO tyae
Winstons authorize these vicious eli
torals? DO they approve of them
and stand behind them? Have they
adopted this policy for themselves,
: and instructed their employees TO make
war upon the Anti-Saloon League and
denounce its leaders? Do they know
| that these leaders are all ministers
} and leading iaymen of the churches
| of Virginia. On what ground do they
authorize or even permit the paper
, which they own and control to at
. tack the standing and motives and
characters of men who are recognized
as of good character by their res
pective churches? Are these men
professional whoopers and howlers q"
Are hey guilty of "disingenuous raw
ings"? Is the Anti-Saloon League
simply ian enterprise to keep certain
[ prosecuted but highly-vocal souls on
the payroll" Do these new owners
Of the Times Dispatch know what
is being printed in their papers? Do
they approve of it? Have they given
TO Mr. Hasbrook instructions to ma Ike
> these bitter. malicious attacks upon
the leaders of the Anti Saloon League
of Virginia? Mr. Hasbrook came to
Virginia from the North when the
Winston Brothers bought the Times
Dispatch. and is reported to he the
manager of the paper Is he the au-
thor of these attacks upon the Anti
Saloon League workers? If not, does
ne instruct others to make these at
lacks. or does he simply allow his
editorial writer's to determine the
policy of the paper in this matter?
No matter whether Mr.. HasbroolS
allows II or inspires it, The fact re-
mains that the owners of the paper
are responsible for its policies, and
the prohibition people of Virginia
have a right to hold the Winston
Brothers responsible for what appears
In their paper
According TO the paper of the Win
ston Brothers the prohibition people
4of Virginia are so lacking In intel
iHgence as to he fooled into the sup