The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-03-04
AFTERNOON sTsglcN.

NJ II. NN'AFsH - A'rsN.
number Of amendments having
beating or tbs pe-+ICns creating and
defining the powers Md duties Of tho
sgrHihltiou commissioner were pas scd
Hy au.l tCiar
Quart Provision Retained.
My Myers declaring that ne In not
advocating temperance, but prohibit
tJ>n presented an amendment 10 strike
aaf th. One quart "A month" proyi-
sion and make the State absolutely
dry The vote against the amend
wert stood on showing II hands, 20
lar 20 rs against cutting out the quart
EHu call stood 81 ayes to As noes
The recorded vote. follows;
Yeas Adams. a S: Baker, II. P;
NrrcN Bond Buck. Cook. Edwards.
Fu0er. Goodwin. Hohson, Ieedy,
Nfre'ze Myers Phillips Price J H;
Eert Bnlston Russell. Shumate.
S'.H>e Willis.
Na,a- Baker ". W Baum. Brew
sr Hre.ow. Buhrmsn. Burke, Glenn
er' Eol1iron. Commlns. Daniel Dod-
s# Floyd. Gatewood Gordon, Harris.
Hf,r'suu. HorsleN Hudgins. Jett
Jones, Jordan, Kent. Love, Mann,
Moss Nuserave. holland Norris
owen, Price. Re- w, Ramsey, Rev.
~at tn slant. Steck, Stephenson. Swift,
1l@any. Valentine Walton, Williams,
Winston. Witten. Wright Thos. Mr.
Speaker.
Yeas. 2l, NAYS AZ.
MIR. Myers next moved the adoption
r another amendment TO the same
section. 10 allow one gill instead OF
are quart per month This was over
~ helminEly voted down. as were also
aH amendment by Mr. Gllpin, os
Clarke. to make Il one gallon, and an
amendment by Mr. I.eedy TO change
Il 70 two quarts a month.
Change of Venue.
Section GO of the measure provia-
ing for a change OF venue for the
trIal 81 cases Of alleged violation Of
tile prohibition law was next subjected
10 the efforts the opposition TO the
Nh Mr. Leefy moved adoption OF an
amendment cutting out the provision
The amendment was lost by vote
81 ? ayes to SO noes
Mr.. Teedy regarded that section Of
Tie law as a most tyrannical one. He
far}area mat there has been no such
practice rs this section OF the law
would allow in English Jurisprudence
fer tire Ia 81 400 years except that
which our forefathers revolted
against Taking person from his
own community into another for trial,
he declared to be unconstitutional
and an invasion Of personal rights
which the Anglo-Saxon will not stand.
Under the Code there Is now pro-
vision for the change OF venue. he
said. hut no court has ever forced "A
change OF venue except al the wish of
the defendant
Mr. White declared this to be a
grave question He stated that n man
8 AE. e 4%fs, tf-s hi
peers in his viCtnage. privilege
granted by Magma Charta Of which
there have been 1877 rcaf1rmations In
The Taef zoo years Mr.. white cor
rectcd the statement OF Mr.. Leedy
that change of venue has never been
taken In Virginia except at the desire
IF the accused. saving that it had
been done once. He laid that II was
custom 10 get a change Of venue
when the accused could not get a fair
trial in his own community because OF
/ prejudice against him He doubted
fhe wisdom OF giving the state this
prlv. 1ege possessed ny the accused.
MI Hudelns showed that law Civ
ing the State the right 10 take a
change OF venue has been on the
statute books since 1877.
Mr. stephenson = called upon the
friends Of prohibition to stand by this
provision.
Mr. Jordan opposed the amend
rnent declaring that its adoption
would so weaken the bill as 10 make
II impossible in some sections OF the
state to secure convictions for viola
tions Of the prohibition law.
Following the rejection OF the
amendment MIR Hndgins moved 10 re
consider aud Mr., Gordon moved to
pags 10y the motion 10 reconsider. The
House refused to pass by a vote of 81
10 AZ and refused t. reconsider by
a vote Of 36 10 AZ
I Mr.. swfft's Amendment
Mr. Swift Of Fredericksburg, Of
fered an amendment to the change Of
Venue section 10 meet the objection
raised by MIR Ledy. This was to per-
NIT the attorney for the accused also
To move a change of venue. The SEC
tIon provides that the court may. in
its discretion, upon motion OF the at
1orney for tho Commonwealth. the
complainant or his attorney. or of the
commissioner or his attorney, when he
Ia in the case. change the venue to
some other county or city"
Mr. Leedy remarked that tbs Swift
'endment looked like joker. Mr..
Swift showed him where It was de-
signed to meet the very objection that
10 had made that the section per-
fIitted the state 10 change the venue
and did not accord the defense a like
privilege. AIR. Leedy admitted his
mistake. sat down, and the amend
meut waz adorted
Grinding Malt Forbidden.
Mr. Cook moved 10 amend section
-. which makes it unlawful for any
person - grind malt in this State or
amy substitute for the same. by what
f.cr name IL may be called to be used
t0 -ae manufacture Of ardent spirits"
The following clause Of this section,
and tte Larden OF proof shall be
apCH any person grinding matt TO
show that such malt is not to be used
ir violation OF this act" was what Mr..
Cook objected to
lie said that ne is miller, and
stated u IS Impossible for him and
other millers who grind corn to know
to. what use the meal is TO be put
Corn whiskeT. he said. Is made from
: ground corn, and II would work an
usual hardship upon the miller to
compel him 10 Ana what use the mc1l
-vas 10 he put 70. The meal as a sub
stltute for malt In the making Of
whisKey ne said, brought every miller
grinding corn into danger OF violating
the law without knowing it. The
amendment was rejected