The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-07-28

pres and people approve the law. are
gratifed at its operation. and will up
hold It's enforcement" While IL pro-
fesses to hold no brief for Mr.. Davis
il holds that candidate up TO the peo-
pie as like itself. an orthodox pro-
hlhitonist. II comments on the fact
that Mr. Davis did not In his platform
even mention the subject Of prohibit
ton. which by the way. Ia not sur
prlstne, fer Mr. Davis has not cared
TO face this Issue. Wet candidates
never do. The News Leader is as
strong In it's enmity toward the Anti
Saloon ,leaEue, the agency through
which the campaign for prohibition in
Virginia was waged effectively, as It
was in that campaign.
The Evening Journal which was
shamefully wet In 1914 but recently
under the new management committed
itself to prohibition. follows the News
Leader in declaring that prohibition
is no longer an issue In Virginia. as
the people have settled II for all time
But rave they settled fl for ali time
We hope they have We believe they
have But this hope and this belief
;rrc based upon the conviction witch
The VirEinian has always held, that
the dry. voters Of Virginia will not be
F fooled into putting into office men who
are not in sympathy with this cause
! The Times Dispatch has usually
! been very careful and guarded about
i taking position IN intra party fights.
It is very polite. 1t advises tho
! Democrats to get down to tacks and
to cut out personalities 1t, too, re-
CARDS prohibition az settled. 1t does
1 not want prohibition made an issue
/ II did not want It made an Issue in
/ 1914 That paper says:
! Whether Mr. Pollard did or
did not think, fifteen years ago,
that the Legislature should be free
/ to est blish dispensarles when It =
! saw fit AS a substitute ,for.the sa>
loon cannot affect the fact that
7 ~ nj
i Inv and is now in favor Of it's en-
! forcement. Whether Mr. Fllyson
I ala or did not vote for the saloon
in Richmond thirty odd years ago
can scarcely, ms we view II, de-
tract from his service to prohtfd-
{ ton In casting the deciding vote
on the passage OF the enabling
I act
We hnd the Norfolk Ledger Dis
patch, whose present editor was n
member of the Times Dispatch editor
ial staff three years ago, also declar-
+ ing that prohibition is not state is
sue. IT, too, holds that the question of
prohibition has been settled. and there
is no occasion to keep that issue be
fore the people or to inquire whether
/ or not candidates for Office are In sym
patty with that principle and the en-.
forcement Of that law
The position or these dry and wet
newspapers is not surprising. We dc
not mean TO question their sincerity
/ In processing a desire that the pres
ent law shall be enforced We do
however. want our readers to keer
in mind the position occupied by these
papers IN 1914, and to consider
whether their advice on this subject
now is better than their advice was
then.
There is one safe plan for the peo-
, pie who really favor the continuance
+ OF prohibition In Virginia, and that is
TO nominate for governor a man who
Is avowedly In favor OF prohibition.
and man who they believe can be
elected We think this fact Ia clearly
understood and are confident that In
the primary of August :, a dry cover
nor will be named