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

necessary Tor an honest tAtNtAoil'
These provisions ere the outgrowth
OF more than fifty years OF expert
ence. The states realize they are
necessary. Certainly no one IS so
gullihie here as To believe that the
methods used In the states 10 bride
voters and corrupt the electorate VIII
not be used here. The danger here Is
double because no adequate corrupt
practice laws will be supplied.
/ A leading legal authority points out
in this connection that the tnVestiga-
ton now in Pittsburg shows the means
for collecting money by the liquor In
terests, as. according to press reports
several millions of dollars are collect
ed In that one state from the brewers
and liquor dealers, Also attention Is
called TO an extract from a letter by
Adolphus Busch, of st. Louis. seized
( by the attorney general OF Texas:
1T may cost us millions, and
+ even more; but what OF IL II we
elevate our position?'
II will not mind to give one
hundred thousand extra II neces-
; sary"
With all sincerity.
Your friend
ADOLPHUS BUSCH.
Unless all the safeguards used in
/ the states for an honest election are
provided fer here, the proposed cleo
ton would be n farce and disgrace.
1t would set back suffrage for the Dis
trict decades. Those who are really
friends of suffrage for the District
and favor a referendum on this one
question now will find that their pres
ent alliance with the liquor crowd viii
hinder rather than help them IN
reaching their goal.
/ Benefit Liquor Crowd.
No good reason can be given for
singing out this one question for a
referendum except that the liquor
| crowd will be benefited by 1t.
| When the issue arises to make the
| District sovereignty 50 that voters
may pass on n referendum and not
forfeit their right TO vote for national
officers and jeopardize their citizen
ship, then will be a time TO vote on
this issue and other issues, but not
under existing conditions.
What is the special interest back of
this referendum? Not primarily those
who have voted for local self govern
ment. Most OF the leaders for Il In
/ the house and senate have opposed n
| referendum, local or statewide, on the
| liquor issue when It came up in their
| state as an advanced temperance
| movement.
The retail liquor dealers In this city
| papers and you will be convinced.
( When the president OF the Liquor
/ Dealers association in Washington
! called the meeting ta9ather- to arrange
/ for the referendum mass-me citing
here, they tried TO cover 1t up and
! put others In charge. The statement
was given out that II would not be
an anti-prohibition meeting, but ref
! erendum meeting. Many attended
! ,rnt9a TINT renrezantaftNn md To
! their disgust. found the meeting was
! turned into an prohibition meet
| ing.
| Nothing can be gained NY the real
| friends of the referendum or Of local
self government In championing this
referendum. which inures only to the
| benefit OF the liquor crowd.
| Many OF the mon in congress who
| have been the best friends Of the Dis
| trict and have done their best to get
! the people OF this nation TO realize
| their responsibility in supporting
measures which help the national
capital. have already pointed out the
hangers lurking in this referendum.
! Their reasons should be weighed
carefully before any person In the
District favors the proposed referen-
dunn.
Prohibition Aids Business.
| The dry ADVOCATES presented evil
| dence from the dry states TO show
/ that business is benefited by prohi-
! bition; that when saloons are closed
much OF the money spent therein
goes to the grocers. the dry goods man
and other merchants. In order to have
sound business prosperity. both, the
seller and the purchaser must be
benefited. In the liquor business the
| purchaser gets no benefit and the eco
| nomic basis for successful business Is
destroyed. The advocates OF the htll
presented fact from Virginia and other
| dry states to show that crime ana
| drunk nness would decrease more
than so per cent when the saloons
were closed. In answering the reve-
nue. argument, they quoted the de-
cision OF Justice Grier In the license
cases, in which he said: 'If there
should be n loss OF revenue by the use
OF this power (referring to the power
to prohibit the liquor traffic., the gov
eminent would be the gamer a thou
sand-foid in the health. wealth and
happiness OF her people" In summing
up the arguments. the friends OF the
bill insist that n dry capital means
that Washington would benefit just
as Seattle. Wash. or Denver. Colo.
did for instance. Here Is what Ma tor
-tC. II. Bfethen. editor Of the Seattle
Daily Times. said:
My paper fought It's dsmnedest
against prohibition. We fought It on
economical grounds alone We be-
lieved that In q great seaport city.
with n population of upwards of 300,-
| 900 people, prohibition wouLi he de-
structive; II would bring on economi-
cal disaster.
We have had a month OF II now.
I'VE already know that II Is a great
benefit, morally and from an economi-
cal standpoint
Money that went formerly over the
bar for whskey Is now being spent
for clothing for the women and chill
dren and In better food for the house
! hold.
Yes, SIR, we have found in Seattle
| that II IL better to buy shoes than
hooze. The families of wage carriers
| in Seattle are going to have more food
ana clothes and everything else than
| they had before"
Prohibition in Colorado.
Governor George O. Carlson, of
Colorado. according TO testimony sub
mitted said;
Two thousand and fifty new saw
ings accounts were opened In the Dem
yer Savings bank during January,
ll916.
For January, 1916, reports OF eight
Denver banks show $4,000 increase
IN Af Tn