Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-02-18
Prohibition Law .Acauittals

JUDGE RICHARDSON'S refusal TO return q
j verdict Of guilty on Prohibition Commits
sonr Pctcrs's blanket indictment o: all the
JurieS of the Hastings Court was to have been
expected. Not only the legal point involved.
but manifest considerations OF propricty and
far play. dictated the judges refusal to rule
in advance that II Richmond jury would not
40 Justice III any case involving the appli-
cation of the prohibition law
IN our Judgment, the men who serve on
JurieS in this city compare favorably with
men who serve on juries in tho rural districts.
in integrity we'll as intelligence That
members uf the bar should resent the re-
Election Mr.. Peters sought to cast on their
felloW-citizcns was demanded by every feel
Ing of civic pride.
ii is true large proportion Of the persons
accused OF violating the prohibition law have
Dcen found not guilty. In al least such
case the acquittal practically was dictated by
the charge of the court to the effect that
the laws presumption of intent to sell.
created by the possession of more than Il
stipulated amount OF liquor. could be re-
buttcd by other evidence. AS the jury found
this presumption had been rebutted. ac-
Guittal followed as matter Of course
But the real trouble probably goes deeper
The punitive provisions Of the Nlapp law are
drastic. First Offenders, ii is provided shall
be fined not less than $50 nor more than
sou, and be confined in Jail not less than
one nor more than six months" A second
ohehse, save in some few excepted cases is
n felony. This means that Il man who is
caught importing an excess quantity OF
liquor. although for his personal use or is
detected III the act OF drinking on a public
street, in hotel or railroad station must.
II convicted, go to Jail Fine and imprison-
mcnt both arc required by the law.
Nnen the Mapp bill was under consldera-
ion III the General Assembly, The Times
Dispatch venturcd word OF warming based
on these heavy penalties. Our criticism.''
we said then. springs from our apprehension
that Virginia jurics would share the feeling
thht snch punishment is ovcrgrcat for the
crime committed and rather than send some
otherwise fairly decent fellow to tho Gala
boosc. turn him loose on n dcfensclcss com
munity. In another editorial discussion OF
TINS matter VIC said The success or failure
OF the law will be written in Richmond and
Norlolk, rather than i'll some secluded country
district. Whatever be the rural standard
urban populations can scarcely he brought
10 regard as Il felony, or even as a high mis-
"emcahor' punishable by long prison term
the individual importation OF something more
than the laws alcoholic allowance"
1T may we'll be that the apprch cnsious thus
expressed arc being justified by the Prohibit
non Commissioners experience with Rich
mono lurics. At any.rate, we feel convinced
mat 5uries here will demand weighty-not to
say overwhelming evidence before they con
sent to send To jail a man accused of taking
4 drink on the street or of importing within
any calendar month. a quart and a gill or
distilled liquor. There is moral distinction
between taking Il prohibited drink ANA ,nl,inr
q neiehbors spoons. hut there is no distiuc
noh under NirSinia's laws. Amendment OF
'he ia"' ana not an imported jury is what
me SITUATION IN Richmond demands