The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-04-08

them in the class with the TimcsD ispdtchf If
so why should the Times-Dtspdtch protest since
they men Of such conscience Judgment and
clear vision If not. why is the TimeS-Dspatch
disturbed over their ultimate destination
|. The most remarkable utterance the Times
dispatch has made however, is that
The vote last September showed beyond
question that large majority of the voters
Of this State desired prohibition In the very
nature Of things prohibition sentiment will he
predominant in any General Assembly at all
likely to ne chosen The question Virginia must
consider is. what is 10 be done With those who
differed from the guaJor.ty7'
This is truly new logic. Admitting that the
majority desires prohibition the Timeq.OSDdfrh
thinks that majority should yet elect members
Of the minority to represent il. and by this pro
cess insists that I'm the very nature Of things
prohibition sentiment will be predominant in
any General Assembly at all likely to be chosen"
We agree with this conclusion how the
7imes-Dtspdtch reached e by its process of rea-
soping We fall to discern Any assembly cat all
likely to be chosen" viii. we believe be pre-
dominenty influenced by prohibition sentiment
But It Is absurd to talk Of reaching such re
suit by electine the enemies OF prohibition to
express such sentiment
What does this position amount 20? 1t is not
the position OF the Times Dispatch alone al
though expressed by that paper with character.
istc badness and rudeness
The Ercninp journal. alarmed al the prospect
of its ally about to receive a drubbing yesterday
said:
"A few citizens Of his state who possibly
more or less thoughtfuI but certainly not
d,sinterested, are trying To drli into the public
mlnd that the vote and action of men on the
prohibition question last September should be
made the final ana definite test the measure OF
fitness or uuftness for any office
This statement bears all the earmarks of be
ing characteristic Journal pipe dream Nobody
in Virginia is trying to do any such thing. There
are a great many thoughtful people who are
wondering what reason justice there is in
demanding that the minority should be charged
With enaeting into law and enforcing the will
Of the majority. There are great many such
people who are not "disnterested" because they
have the welfare OF the State much at heart
The lives Of her citizens, her reputation for law
(nforcenent-that they VIII NOT stand ldly by
and see the wet forces in the Senate Of Virginia
thwart the Will OF the people in the future as in
the past These thoughtful and disinterested"
new apostles of prohibition who are clamoring
SO for recognition should evidence more acnmen
than to expect that the people will lose their
reason and hand over the conduct of their fight
against the liquor traffc to politicians and papers
which did not. before September %, and do not
now want prohibition.
If the contention Of the Ttmes.DiSpdtch and
the Journal are adopted by the people, what
would be the logical result? Why, the people
would be asked to defeat not wet candidates for
the Senate, the House. and executive Offices, but
to defeat the dry men, who have previously held
those positions II wet man should be elected
a dry man should be defeated II the logic is
true for one office it is true for all If the peo-
PIE the tremendous majority OF the people who
voted for prohibition have not the right to
elect men who truly represent them, in whom
does the right reside? Does it reside in the
Does it reside in the Times Dispatch
or the Etening J0prnGlf 1t does not and il will
not reside anywhere or with anybody save with
the majority OF the voters OF Virginia. Theirs
is the voice. and theirs the vote.