The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-02-27


country.
These militant workers in the
cause OF temperance were backed ny
REPRESENTATIVES, of the Anti-Saloon
IIeague OF America, representing that
body as an organization as well as
themselves as individuals, Dr. James
Cannon. Jr., chairman OF the nation
ii legislative committee OF the
1earue; DR.. f. c. Dinwiddle, national
legislative superintendent; Hon.
wayne b. Wheeler. attorney and gen
eral counsel for the league; Mr., An
drew Wilson, president Of the Dis
trict OF Columbia league; Mr.. A. F.
Shoemaker. attorney and executive
secretary of the District league. either
spoke in behalf OF the bill or by their
presence at the hearings gave their
assistance by way OF suggestion and
by their presence.
From the house OF representatives
was Judge A. w. Barkley, OF Ken
lucky. author of twin measure to
that OF Senator Sheppard, and the
Hon, Charles H Randall, Of Los
Angeles, militant Prohibitonist.
Others who spoke included Mrs. Mar
Raret DYE Ellis. OF the w. G. T. u;
Miss Anna shelton. president OF the
District w. c. T. L: Mr.. Robert Bur
bank. representing the Epworth
league
the Rev r. r. Richards, OF Mont
gomery county. Md; the Rev. Clar-
ence A Vincent of Washington, rep
resen ting the temperance comp,ission
OF the CONGREGATIONAL church; the
Rev, George NJ Cummings, repre-
sentinx the Federation for Social Ser
Vice of Anacostia, D. C.; Mr. Harold
Ramsey. representing one thousand
young people OF the NJ. r, church
South: Mr.. Edward W Oyster, vet
eran labor unionist and representa-
tive Of organized labor OF the DIS
tr,ct; DR.. Clarence True Wilson, sec
rotary of the temperance society OF
the Methodist Episcopal church; DR.
Charles Seaman, of Pittsburg, rep
reeenting the temperance orCaniza-
lions OF the Presbyterian church OF
the United States; Representative
Robert NJ McCracken. OF Iowa, and
others.
Not Only Moral Factor,
These speakers drove home the fact
that prohibition is not only moral
factor, but that It promotes health,
comfort. mental activity and pros
perity az to the individual. as well as
the material prosperity and moral up
Hft OF the various units in which II
70 in force, whether these units be
precincts, counties or states. These
facts were proven as to localities In
which prohibition already exists II
was shown that prohibition is not only
GOOD for the city and the state us II
will be good for the nation.
Arrayed against these speakers for
prohibition and It's beneficent infiu-
cnces were representatives Of brewery
workerg the saloon, the rnanufactu-
rer of liquor, both spirituous and vim
Gus, and the so-called referendum or
ganixations. These charged that pro-
hibition WAS failure; that It was
not good for the body or the mind,
that II interfered with industrial pros
perity. and that It's adoption called
for compensation to the man or men
who have for years enjoyed highly
special privilege at the expense of
pthers not so engaged.
The advocates of the Sheppard bill
brought to the two committees the
District OF Columbia and rules. proof
of the pudding In the form of per-
lums and penitentiaries following tho
introduction OF prohibition; state
ments from city and state officials,
pubiiciSts ana others as to the de-
crease In crime ana the increase of
the health and the prosperity of in
dtviduais, mercantile esta blishments,
nAnufacturers and commemorative
Impressive statements to the latter
efrect came from editors and city and
ether executives who had m ost p.rter-
" opposed prohibition legislation when
4 was being proposed in their com
alunities.
Referendum. Liquors Cloak.
Touching the issue of referendum.
tho cloak behind which the liquor In
terests took refuge In opposing the
~ l.
insisted that the referendum Ia Of
doubtful legality: that II would be i'm
practicable even II tried: that most
attorneys consider that such woufl not
prove practicable If legal: that most
attorneys questioned concerning II ex-
pressed the view that the act would
be illegal: that whale tho courts have
never had an opportunity to pass upon
II, they doubtless would hold It Illegal
should they have that opportunity.
Judge Barley. speaking before the
house rules committee, responding to
Inquiries from Chairman Henry and
Judge Pou, showed that the law
writer's have invariably held that con-
gress cannot refer a proposition to
voters for approval or disapproval I'M
der tho constitution, and that one
court after another has 10 held. This
statement by Judge Barkley appeared
TO be absolutely conclusive as far as
Chairman Henry and Judge Pou were
concerned
II was suggested that because states
may enact local option laws is no pre-
cedent for a referendum In the Dis
t1ct OF Columbia: that willoughby. a
weIl-known authority on the consti-
tuition. volume 2. page 2s4, saws:
THE weight Of authority how
ever. seems to be that the submission
TO the electorate OF tho entire state
an to whether a measure shall or
shall not become O law is void"
A ruling in case law. page 1877,
says:
"A distinction IS made between
matters OF general and local con-
Germ. and local and general laws NAV
be enacted subject TO the approval
Of the voters Of a particular portion
OF the state"
Held Unconstitutional
Also. many state supreme courts
have held state refrrenduns VIII re
there Is no specific authority In tho
constitution to support them, un-
constitutional
There are a long list of cases cup
porting the above doctrine There ia
more reason for upholdng the state
referendum with no snect4c Jaws au-
thortzing 1t than a district referen-