The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-07-14

ton of our government The liouo
question falls into fnsignihcance ~
side this attempt to court destructao8
Of the principles on which our 9oS4H
eminent Is founded
Notwithstanding his declaration f1iS
1912 of the unconstitutionality Of f6M3
! enabling act, yet in 1914 Mr.. whitoE
! voted for the enabling act It II d3E~s
ficuit to understand how Mr..WhitO
could have voted for the enabling act
after his dramatic appeal to memberol
OF the house in 1912 ito remember
their oath of Office" How could heW
violate his own oath OF office by vot-
! ing for a measure which he still de-.
olared to be unconstitutional? IL
elected encouragement of Virginia,
would he violate his oath Of once
| and take an action which he considers
! ed to be unconstitutional as he him.
self admits that he did when he
voted for the enabling act?
| Mr.. White is in error in his states
| ment that his view on the uncon-s
stitutionality of the enabling act has
/ been practically conceded by direct
| legislative enactment"
| The prohibition leaders have never
considered the enabling act to be un.s
| constitutional, but in view of the large,
Z
sary to put the will of the people in-s
| to effect, it was decided to pass one
! comprehensive statute such as the
! Mapp bill. This action was taken for
| the reason also that otherwise the liq-s
| uor traffic would doubtless have at
| tempted to delay Ane operation of the
Marp law by an appeal to the court
on the ground Of its demonstrations
atty.
| ~ -. -.
clared by the friends of the enabling
act that the effort to insert for local
option was an effort to confuse and
| to defeat statewide prohibition. But
the recorSshows that when the con-
ference report was before the house
of delegates for acceptance that Mr..
White moved to strike out the words
| TO Insert for local option" the re-
suit OF which would have been to
greatly confuse the issue before the
people of the state.
! Furthermore, Mr. White voted 10
extend the time befoic prohibition
went into effect from November. 1916.
to May, 1917. thus perpetuating the
LIE of the liquor traffic in Virginia
six months longer.
| Furthermore Mr.. WtiitA's picture
and his denunciations Of the enabling
act, and OF the Anti-Saloon League Of
Virginia, were published as paid adj
vertising by the liquor forces, and the
"Trtmpeter," the organ OF the 1iQ-
uo- traffic. printed his picture ana
his denunciations. and quoted him 81
one of the seven elders whose views
she aid be regarded as convincing
against statewide proh..u.i" n by tie
voters Of ttc commonweal Wheih-
e. NJ. vi Ito was asked for his ler-
mission by the liquor leaders to use
his picture and emphasize his views,
the headquarters committee OF the
league does not know, but as no pro-
test was made by him in the news
papers OF the state against such use.
although two weeks elapsed between
the time of the publication and the
election, 1t was generally presumed
by both the wet" and dry" forces
that he favored the publicity given to
his position by the wet leaders,
Certainly whatever influence Mr..
White had with the people Of vir-.
ginia was used against statewide pros
htbition in the campaign OF 1914. On
September 22. 1914, Mr. White voted:
against statewide prohibition.
Candidates for Secretary of the Conn
monwealth.
Hon. Phillip f. Brown.
The record OF Hon. Phillip r.
Brown and his replies to the questions
of the headquarters committee Of the
Anti-Saloon League OF Virginia are
entirely satisfactory.
Hon. Il. o. James.
The answers to the questions OF
the Anti-Saloon league as given by
Hon. b. o. James are fairly salts
factory. Mr., James replies affirma-s
lively 10 the questions of the head
quarters com mittee. except that he
makes no Affirmative statement con-
corning the constitutional amendment,
contcntlng himself with the -negAtives
position that he offers no objection
thereto
The headquarters committee Is OBJ
hged TO call the attention of the voters
of the state to the administration Of
the office Of the secretary of the COM
monwealth by Mr.. B. o. James during
the statewide campaign.
The records show that on May 1S,
1914, letter was sent to the regis
trars OF the state of Virginia signed
monwealth. asking for the registra-
ton lists OF all voters. Col James
first denied that the letter in question
was sent with his knowledge or COM
sent. Col, James refused, however,
to remove from office his chief clerk.
Mr.. Hayes. who admitted that he HAD
sent the letters out Later on Col.
James aulnitteQ tnaI the fe&lStf0II0M
lists were made out for the agents Of
the liquor traffic to be used In their
interest in the statewide campaign.
Later on II developed that not only
were the registrars requested to send
letters but that letters were sent to
the court clerks. requesting the poll
tax lists. these lists also to be used
by the agents OF the liquor traffic In
the statewide election.
The proof Is conclusive that Col.
James allowed the agents Of tho nQ-s
uor traffic to use the machinery OF
his office as secretary of the commons
wealth to secure information which
Col James knew would be used BY
them to aid In the defeat Of statewide
prohibition. and the facts show that
many OF the registrars and clerks Of
the state were deceived by the letter
sent from the office OF the secretary Of
the commonwealth. and they believed
that they were doing work for the
state of Virginia. whereas they were
working in the interest OF the hQuor
traffic to which many of them were
bitterly opposed.
1t is difficult TO see how Col. James
could have shown his symp athy mora