The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-03-03
TEMPERANCE WORKER.

larity of the men, who might easily
be the best men for the council with
this question eliminated.
Then there is a provision that upon
petition of a majority of the quail
fed voters OF district the court shall
refuse license to the drug stores.
Is this fair to the dry people In
town to make them go out all over
the magisterial district in which the
town is and work up opposition to
sale by the drug stores? Or is 1t fair
to require that an affirmative ma
jority of the qualified voters shall be
secured In opposition? Everybody
knows that a great many men are in
active on every question, and this
provision practically means that every
man who declines to sign such Pc
tition would be counted as favoring
the sale by drug stores. Why not
have provided in the Enabling Act two
years ago that in order to carry pro-
hibtion we must have had a ma
1ority OF all the voters In the State,
whether they voted or not?
The only fair thing to do, certain
- as to those communities that are
already dry, is to exempt them from
the operations of the drug store and
shipment laws look with much
sale by drug stores. So far as / have
seen there Is no provision In any Ga
the bills for regular election by
town. district or county as to allow
ing sale by drug stores.
Sccond-The Shipment Provision.
Such shipments may be stopped by
the councils of towns or cities, but
that Is subject to the same objection
as is the same provision about drug
stores as above stated
I see no other way offered to pre-
vent shipments into dry community
except those in the companion Mapp-
Allison bill tSenate bill 2T6l. and that
contains provision that largely
emaseulates 1t: that Is 1t allows vote
on shipments "for beverage purposes"
Suppose on such vote shipments are
voted out, who Is to say what ship
ments are for beverage and which
not? II community votes to ex-
clude shipments but has drug stores
selling, the drug stores would still get
all they wanted to sell by simply say
ing they were not having 1t shipped to
them for beverage purposes, and under
such law there would be more peo-
pie buying liquor for sickness. cooking
and use in the arts and sciences and
everything else but beverage, than
was ever heard OF before In the world.
And as I say above, there Is no pro-
vision at all for a vote on allowing
drug stores to sell.
7, therefore, earnestly call upon the
dry people in the Legislature to
either
"a Exempt entirely from the pro-
visions of the drug store and shipment
clauses all cities. counties. towns or
districts which are at this time al
ready dry; or else
(2) Provide for regular election In
any county or city as to allowing ship
ments for any use whatever, beverage
or otherwise. and as to allowing sale
by drug stores. and fix It so that the
two questions may be considered in
dependentiy of each other. for 1t
might easily be true that a man might
he in favor of the drug store provision.
but opposed to the shipment. and vice
versa. Let us have an opportunity to
vote on the questions disjunctivly, and
by all means cut out the "for beverage
purposes" In connection with pro-
hibiting shipments.
]. c. PARKER.
Franklin. Va. Feb. IS, 1916.
THE above letter discusses the
two questions. which, next to the
commissionership. have been most
fully discussed by the Senate Com
mittee of Moral and Social Welfare.
and concerning which the greatest
effort has been made to meet the
needs of every community. The SEN
ate committee held that the enabling
act distinctly promised the people
that ardent spirits could be obtained
for mechanical. pharmaceutical. me-
dicipal and sacramental purposes.
and it was thought absolutely nee
essary to make a general provision
which would comply with that pledge.
The committee decided that the
drug store was the logical place for
the sale of ardent spirits for the