The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-03-18

+. y
a bill. ON December tG Hon James
n. Stubs senator from Gloucester,
prcse nted n similar hill in the Senate.
The question of giving TO each COM
muuity toe right Ia determine ~
itself as 10 the sale Of liquor within
its borders naturally excited great
deal of interest. Opponents 81 the
measure being confident ot ite def"at,
the friends IF the measure had tailh
in their ultimate success ISut some
of the best friends of local option
though il unwise To include the cities
in the bill heLCe If YOU VIII examine
the record you VIII discover ai
amendment L. exempt cities Of Hl"O'
Inhabitants and over from the opera
tioH uf the bin, which was proposed iu
the House and passed. hut up"n re
consideration was finally defeated.
The sentiment In favor of tnr "a
emption ~ cities was SO strong mat
the Hon. Henry X. Pollard az kim
and Queen county. who was T""pE-
nizcd leader n the local option forces
in the House. voted for the exon ton,
though h. stated ia doing so that It
was because "f the earnest insistenr"
g thc E'i.t Z the III sasurc. There
was great apprehension that unless
..-.. @A5 dome the hlll might be de
feated. and that sentiment was shar. :
perance people that the Ministers
Conference of Richmond adopted res
olutiona urging that the ettitS he
exempt from the operation If the
bill This was done on the ground
that otherwise tho passage of the bill
might be jeorardised MANY of th"
friends of local option thought that
-f Il was not proposed to take any
action In any If the cities at aH early
,t 4 GENT
created, 1t would he good policy to
walt NTH later date before tuCiud-
ing thrm in the law | vas made II
member of the Senate and at the
earnest request of the leaders of loo al
option. / introduced an amendment
exempting cities from the operation OF
the law in shat body. Just after tins
was done | was present a. supper
at when many of the members OF
the General Assembly were present.
and where the question was raised
TO what would prGba he the fate
of the bill in the Senate, y number
ot tn. mem bers had indicated their
belief that the local option bill would
be defeated. when ] was called upon
to express my views ! stated that / d.!
not know what others might do, but
that / should vote for the bill II |
was the only member OF the Senate to
do go. believing as l did that the party
was pledged to give the people an OPP
lu.t,.t IL vote on the question IN
the different localities Of the state.
and that ! had been elected upon
that platform and felt bound to sup
port the measure both from con-
viction that was my duty as well AZ
because / felt II would be n pleasure
to do SO. / was willing. however. 90
be guided by the friends in charge OF
the bill as to the form which the
bin should take. leaving the response
biiitv for deciding that question with
those who had given 1t the most
thought and made the greatest sacrl-
flee 10 secure the measure.
Rejected Cities Exemption.
The bin was finally passed Ivy
the House OF Delegates and came To
the Senate and was there amended
and returned to the House and finally
passed, both houses having rejected
the proposition to exempt cities from
the operation of the bill, offering one
interesting instance, at least. where
the members of the Legislature gave
to the friends of temperance more
than many OF the warmeat support
ers Of the measure thought IL would
be possible to get at that session OF
the General Assembly. / need hardly
add that I. of course, voted for the
bill in the form In which 1t wac final
ly passed.
1T is interesting to recall how
slow In this matter. as IN the ques-
ton of the observance of the Sunday
law to which | have referred. tbs
liquor dealers were TO understand the
force OF public sentiment They were
so confident Of their ability to defea'
local option in any form that the
Liquor Dealers Association of Rich
mond was unwilling to agree to take
bill that would exempt cities IRON
the operation of the law.
Records are scanty.
Il wish / could mention by name Al
of those to whom credit Is due fni
the noble work that was done In those
DAYS, but the records 1 have ALREADY
indicated do not furnish the intorma
ton and the recollection of the few
who survive liz not sufficiently acru
rate to enable them TO recall all 4,
whom honor is due, and SO ! hat'
thought ii best 10 omit special men
ton of any lest l might overlook
others equally worthy Of special desig-
nation, but | may say that too mucF
credit cannot be given to the splendid
work accomplished by the ludcnpen-
dent Order Of Good Teinplars Of Wiz
ginia, whose grand lodge Was active
and energetic first in securing tht
ADOPTION or FtADluliD1iT 10 ~ tiAE wv "a
option by the State conventions OF tht
two great parties. as well as IA the
earnest presentation of the subject tt
the General Assembly In all Of these
great movements for the regulation
and suppression Of the liquor traffic
our consecrated women have always
borne a noble and most useful part
petition from the grand lodge wa'
presented to the f4ee stature as were
also petitions from Henry County
and from Lynchmrg. The passag'
Of this bill was the beginning al
the end of the licensed SALE OF UqUn1
IN Virginia.
Tells of His Last Vote.
81 have as "A member of The CitA
Council of Richmond and as Il mem
her of the State senate voted on many
measures OF public Importance, bu'
| have never cast Il vote on any ques-
tion which was more far-reaC hing IT
is effects ar which gave me more
pleasure { an the one cast last win
ter as president OF the Senate, whci
I broke the tie on the Enabling Acl
and voted to give the people ~ this
Commo r wealth the opportunity to de-
eide whether there should he anS
saloons In Virginia. | was perm .tted
TO enjoy the privilege OF presiding a
the opening meeting of the camNaigT
held under the ausuices of the Anti
Saloon League in Richmond on Aprt