The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-05-14

FORCES or the state, aid u IS possible TO con-
ceive OF the passage of law by the vote of
such senators who are not convinced OF the
wisdom OF the law and vet feel obliged to
vote for It because of prediction pledges
Lesson from Other States.
My personeI study for years of conditions in
other States conpels me to warn the people of
Virginia that they should send no to the
next Senate who is not personally believer In
prohibition and who does not desire It's
forcement in State. for many questions viii
arise in the enactment of law-enforcement legis-
lation which will be bitterly contested by the
liquor interests and by their allies the Times
Dispatch and the Evening Journal and the News
Leader and by the club life and the society
element OF the cities, and Tremendous pressure
will be brought to bear upon men whose con-
science and conviction not involved to vote
against what will be denominated extreme,
fanntical legislation.
Neither Punishment Nor Persecution.
Holding the above views, I do not think any
one believe that I party in any way
To- any effort to punish or to prosecute any I'm
dividual because of his views on the prohibit
ton question The prohibition question Is
much larger than any individual that the per-
sonal element rarely has any part in the dts
cuEsion Yet in letter recently published in
The Richmond virginian Senator r. X. Brock.
! Of Farmvllie, declares:
''I do not see how any right-thfnkfng man can
raise the 'wet issue in this campaign. The
people of Virginia have Enthusiastically decided
that the State shall be dry and they
effect under the most favorable circumstances,
and adequate laws and penalties for the proper
enforcement thereof.
I'm the announcement Of my candidacy, De-
oenber last (Which was printed in each Of the
five newspapers published in my district
plainly announced this as my position and
can comprehend reason for the raising Of
this issue In this campaign. except in an at
tempt to punish who did not in all matters
vote some OF the most active supporters of
/ ia ling he do
Senator Brock AS An Example.
Senator Brock IS example under the GER
cral principle discussed above. He was a mem
ter Of the State Senate in 1914 and 1914 rep
resenting the counties of Lunenburg, Amelia
Nottcway. Cumberland and Prince Edward He
voted against the enabling act In 1912, and he
voted gaainst the report of the conference COM
mtttee in 1914 He Is running for the
Senate again, and makes the remarkable state
mont in the public print: II do not how
any right-thinling raise the wet issue
In this campaign" Perhaps not. but the writer
can very well see how every right-thinking man
can raise the dry issue in this campaign, and
the fact that Mr.. Brock in his letter declares
that he has always favored the cause OF tenn
perance." and yet In spite OF that fact utterly
msrepresented the people In his district is suf-
fieent Indication that Mr.. Brock does not Know
how to represent tho dry people Of the
Twenty eighth Senatorial District.
But according to the position taken by the
Tlmes-Dispaech and the wet" leaders. why
District
Brock back to the Senate OF Virginia He him
self declares that the people are entitled to
and should have prohib- ion put into effect, etc.
He declares that there is reason. except per-
secution and punishment 70 raise the prohibit
tom issue in the present campaign. and he fur
theymore declares that he IN TO be punished
because he ala not in all matters vote some
Of the most scrfvs supporters OF the enabling
act thought he should do" As a matter of fact,
re did not vote for the enabling act at all IN
I'm he cd To dow, witt
ob5echonai amendments, and finally voted
against the conference report, because that
report had stricken out the deceptive ballot
desired by tho liquor traffic. II Senator Brock
had had his way. never would have had any
opportunity to vote on Statewide prohibition
at all.
MIsrepresented Twenty Eighth Senatorial
District.
That district has been dry for many years
and every who knew the district well
enough to represent IT, knew that II was "dYy."
Governor Mann represented the district at the
time he introduced the Mann law. He was
succeeded by Honorable John J. Owen. who also
voted dry for the Byrd law. When Mr. Brock
was elected, there triangular contest, but
Il generally understood that Mr.. Brock
would vote for the enabling act II his people
desired IT. When the enabling act passed the
House of Delegates in 1919 the delegates from
Iunenhurg. Prince Edward and Cumberland
/ fthree in alp voted for the bill. The delegate
from Nottowsy and Amelia Toner voted against
1t, Thus the vote IN the district wood. three
| to
Brock in 1912.
) went personally to Mr. Brock, not
| superintendent OF the Anti-Saioon League of
Virginia but as a citizen of Nottowav County
and TO my surprise found that he was unde-
cided as to how he would vote. He said that
he would vote for the bin II majority of his
constituents asked him to do I asked him
whether he would demand the same percentage
/ from the other side and he said he would
not. that there must be majority In favor
| Of the bill matter II there were not ten
per cent opposed TO IT, 7 went to work TO Sc
| cure petitions. and several days before the
vote IN the bill Mr.. Brock told me that he
was satisfied that ] need not get any more
names. I had just begun working and could
have easily secured clear majority OF the
district, but as he said he was satisfied
rested and stated publicly that Mr. Brock had
| promised me that he would support the DILL,
/ Changing From Day to Day.
! Two three days later / saw in the noon
edition of of the afternoon papers that
Mr. Brock had changed his position, and had
announced TO the opponents Of the bill that
he would vote against it. OF course. did not
| believe 1t, and stated to friends that 1t
was simply newspaper gossip; that had Mr..
s 4