The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-02-23
Senators Split Even on Question
of Method Of Election Of Pro-
hibition Commissioners
AS BILL NOW STANDS
ASSEMBLY WILL ELECT
Senator Mapp In a Clear Cut
Statement Showed Injus,ice
of Requiring a Primary and
Election to Fill Office

The prohibition commissioners, who
Ia to be charged with the responsive
duty of having prohibition enforced
In this State, will be elected by the
General Assembly, unless the actton
taken by the State Senate en- yeater-4
day is changed.
The upper branch, by the tie vota
| of Is to Is, failed to adopt an amend
ment offered by Senator Royal. o.
Tazewell, providing that the commits.
stoner be elected by the people In tho
November election. Lieutenant-(sov
ernor Ellyson ruled that the amend
ment required majority vote tor
adoption. 1t cling suggested by gena~
tor STROBE that the chair, under the
Provisions of the Constitution, might
vote. Mr.. Ellyson declared that II NJ
had voted 1t would have been against
the amendment.
and of two or three others relating ~
the manner of choosing thu commits
sioner consumed practically the whole.
OF the morning session. One Of the
amendments defeated renewed the
proposition that the commissioner ~
appointed by the Governor. another.
| proposed by Senator Cannon, OF Rich
| mond. proposed submitting the whole
| question of having n commissioner to
1
Senate Very Evenly Divided.
The discussion az well az the vote
showed the Senate to be very eSen1y,.
| divided on the question of has .ng the
people of the state elect a prohibitions
commissioner. Indeed, this amend-
ment came more nearly being adopted
than any opposed Ivy Senator Mapp.s
chairman OF the Moral Welfare Come
nnittee Of the Senate, and f1rst of the
\ M fRSSvz ~ ~
this question is interesting from noy@
erai points Of view. Senators Wallks
err and Saunders, co-patrons with Mr.
Mapp OF the prohibition bill, both.
advocated and voted for election VI
the people. The proposition va
made by Mr.. Royal, 4 Republican,
and all four of the Republicans who
have been steadfastly supporting sens
ator Mapp, antagonized ths commits.
tees position and cast their votes -
popular election.
| Senator Strobe. who throughout thu
discussion OF the commissionerslslp
has frequently commented i.pon tho
activity and potential influence OF cna
/ or more officers and lead,ns OF the
Ann-Saloon League of Yirxinia. nd
vocated the election OF the commits
sioner by the people az earnestly ~
he had opposed having any commia.
sioner at all.
| Danger Pointed Out.
Senator Mapp closed the SiscussiOn
on this point in a flve-minute speech
which was one of the ciaareat ana
| strongest made in connection with
this important piece OF legislation
| more time. it is believed that the
vote for election by the LegislaturN
would have been larger.
Senator Mapp made 1t clear that Se
would be grossly unfair to the AsivU-s
Gates Of prohibition to require thu
election OF this first COMMISSIONER W
the people, as in order to mako cor-
tain Of electing dry" man whoN
would enforce the law, the '.dry" po6~
pie. who had bourne the brunt Or afkN
extensive campaign. which had net
yet all been paid and for which soma
of the self-sacrincing men had
pledged practically everything tney
had, would be compelled to hold =
State primary. for which there wera
no funds provided. II the election ~
commissioner should be gone int0.S
| with a free-for-all race. nud several
dry" candidates entered. II sfna
more than possibility that the liquor
interests would combine IN 4 man
whom they could elect az the result
of division among the .drys'' ana
thus all work done for prohsbition III
Virginia would be largely cast to the II
winds, Senator Mapp said he waa
entirely favorable. as general propO-
sition, to election by the people. ana
that he had an amendment which NJ
would offer later providing that AFTER
the first term the commissioner shou1A
be so elected. This amendment va Il
offered In the afternoon and paassA
by.
Position Of Mr.. E1lyson.
he ri - ~ - =
Royal amendment resulted In the
very pointed declaration Of Laou-
tenant Ellyson's pOaatlo1.
which Is In line with the dght b11aE
led by Senator Mapp. Mr. Iii noats
position would probably not have k0exls
SO pointedly declared but for ~ Ae
that the vote was q tie and that A&kQG
the Lieutenant Governor hAd ~
nounced the Royal amendment &o6
Senator Strobe uEgested that III
the constitution the predding o11G&
of the Senate should cast tbs dce 1I5 &
vote. Without q moment's heeeknei4A
Mr.. Ellysoa replied: he chAae NoN(
vote This declaration c1aIS = II
prom 2tly md, perhaps, WAa 81
more unexpected than the 4 .ex1o4Nl IS
vote which Mi. Ellyson cost IN
passage Of the enabling Act, Wihen& 4l1G1 MA
Yeas ago, the vote on that msa i n
was tie. ss z$t9
THE chs-ir votes .ays and ~ 3A
1 il passed. 4 were tbs stentfcAnt W(} S|
spoken by the Lieukennnt-f n r.
j1914, which gave u the poop31 9G 4X&
state their ione-da3nyeA ttehk N fQ a
on the 0uestion of 6kxeget1G ~ q
from The itssnssd nenex
s ssa pssvslsss sss G.
sf3Aflf ~ ~ sn&nG0 ~ n 111