The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-03-23
DOl6OI F[OItO
By LIQUOR CROWD
TO FIGHT MEASURE
Insurance Agent Threatened With
Consolation Of Policies Unless
with Wet Bunch.
REAL ESTATE COMPANY
GIVEN SAME THREAT
Dry Business Men Unshakcn, How
ever, and Give Boycotters To Un-
derstand That Threats Count for
Nothing.

washington, ID. c., March 22.-The
campaign in behalf OF prohibition in
the District of Columbia Is making
manifest two things, one the extremes
Of which the opposition to prohibition
will 70 in the effort to defend 1t, the
boycott being one OF tho weapons, and
the other the effect that sush tactics
are certain to bring to the front strong
ftiu. az Of prohibition who will gladly
back II finan =. lliy and morally when
the occasion requires.
Attorney A. E. Shoemaker, of the
Anti-Saloon League for the District
Of Columbia along the lines suggest
ed and At the request OF the National
Daily has prepared the following
statement OF what has recently hap
poned:
Tho liquor crowd for weeks has
been circulating petitions favoring a
referendum on prohibition for the
District and opposing prohibition by
direct action Of Congress They have
been urged upon the business men
of the city, and in many instances It
was sought to. GEORGE men who favor
prohibition. and who SEQ In the ref
erendum agitation q means Of delay,
into signing the petition. Threats of
the boycott were uttered. AMI in some
instances applied. Can ii be mag
ined that this attempt at coercion
was in the interest OF suffrage for
the District. No, rather Il was the
pursuit Of a policy long since adopt
ed by the liquor crowd everywhere,
to brighten and intimidate those who
cannot be reached by other means.
This policy 10 well understood and its
application in the District of Column
bia causes no surprise.
Al a CIR Oota
not be inundated. There are
among the business men of this city
many strong men who will not bend
to the win OF the pro-liquor power.
Was Not Frightened.
~ prominent insurance agent who
ia in favor of prohibition for the
District, but who is opposed 70 sub
hitting the question TO "A referendum
under the circumstances. has been
approached by holders or policies III
his company with the threat that I'M
less he line up with the vets by sign
ing In favor OF a referendum business
would be taken away from his COM
pany. This business man was not
frightened and refused the demands
and defied the threats. But no poll
icy has as yet been Cancelled
"a prominent real estate company
was approached by saloonkeeper
for the signature of the president to
a referendum petition. The sigma
ture was refused. The company was
collecting some rents for the sa-
loonkeeper who remarked upon ieav-
ing that he would haIe. To give his
business to some friend OF the liquor
business.
Another instance: The president
of one of the largest national banks
of the city was waited upon ut his
bank and asked TO sign the reforen-
dunn petition. Being a prohibition
lat and regarding the proposed ref
erendum as an prohibition de-
vice. he refused. The caller, who was
deposltor In the bank. INN ediately
withdrew his account amounting to
50. 900 as rebuke TO the president
The next day for the same reason an
other depositor withdrew his account
OF $4,000. The board of directors
learning of the Withdrawals. were. II
10 said, somewhat concerned. There
was q meeting OF the board. and while
the matter was under discussion a
gentleman called at the bank and ask
ed for the president. who left the
meeting TO meet his visitor The pres
idenf WAS asked II Il were true that
he had refused 10 sign petition for
a FcE0EeUGuHf on pTpHtHitfoI ROT the
District. giving as reason that he ia
vors prohibition for the District. The
president said that he had refused to
sign such petition for the reason given.
The caller said he was glad to know
II was true. and In order To show how
glad he was he asked the privilege
of opening an account at the bank
and thereupon made an initial de-
posit of $50. 600"