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

sympathy with the prohibition policy
Of the state of Virginia, as declared
in the statewide election in 1914, and
in the election Of the general assem- bly,
of 1915. which enacted the prohibit
| ton law of the state, when those per-
sons are charged with the duty of
making or enforcing the prohibition
laws. We would emphasize our con-
vietioH that II will be a great mistake
| for our people to think that the fight
has been so completely won that it
Is matter of small moment to the
prohibition cause what persons are
elected to public Office The making
and the enforcement of the prohibit
ton laws should be in the hands OF
those who are in hearty sympathy
with such laws. The experience of
Maine and Kansas and other prohibit
ton states furnishes the strongest pos
sible reason for the election of those
persons only who honestly favor pro-
hibition. when those persons are
charged. with the duty OF making or
enforcing the prohibition laws. Our
state prohibition policy has not been
IT. operation long enough for ls to
be willing to throw prudence to the
winds, and TO elect men TO public Of
fee who were openly and aggressive
| II opposed TO statewide prohibition,
and give to them the power to weaken
cur prohibition laws or to bring them
into contempt by lax and uncertain
enforcement"
In view of this clear-cut declara-
| ton of policy adopted by the state
convention. the headquarters commit
tee of the Anti-Saloon League of Nir-
g!nla considers 1t to be a matter of
prime importance TO present very
clearly the facts concerning the pro-
hibitiou record OF the various candl-
dates that all the voters of the state
may be fully informed
Candidates for Governor
The records OF Hon. J. Taylor FL
Tyson and Hon. Jno Garland Polar l
as given above show that both OF these
men have shown their sympathy with
the prohibition policy of the state or
Virginia as declared in the statewide
election Of 1914" and that both OF
them have answered in the affirmative
the questions propounded by the
headquarters committee Of the league.
Hon. Westmo' Gland Davis
The record of Hon. Westmoreland
Davis shows that he was not In sym
pathy with the prohibition policy of
the state Of Virginia as declared in
the statewide election OF 1914. and
that he either does not consider the
prohibition question OF sufficient i'm
portance TO give II a place In his
platform. or declaration OF principles,
or that he has not carefully and thor
loughly thought through the proper
I policy of the state of Virginia In this
matter or that he is unwilling to COM
NIT himself positively to a course of
action in regard 10 future prohibition
| legislation. Therefore. before any
| friend Of prohibition in Virginia votes
Tfax- b.
/ ly satisfied that the position OF Mr
Davis on other public questions Is Of
such importance as TO outweigh his
past and present attitude on the sub
| Ject OF prohibition, Certainly on the
prohibition question alone, the past
| and present record OF Mr. Davis is
such that to quote the resolution OF
the convention, II will be to throw
/ prudence to the winds to elect a man
to the ONCE OF governor who was
openly and aggressively opposed TO
statewide prohibition.
| The following facts are emphasized
concerning Mr.. Davis position:
First. Mr. Davis voted against
statewide prohibition" on September
%. 1914. In his reply. quoted above
| Mr.. Davis declares that he voted
for local option" Mr.. Davis knows
that this statement is inaccurate The
advocates OF the saloon in Virginia
fought fereeiy In the legislature to
confuse the issue in the statewide cleo
ton by providing that the ballot
should read. for local option" "for
statewide prohibition" But the gen
eral assembly of Virginia decided that
the ballot should read FOR statewide
prohibition" against statewide pro-
hibition." Mr. Davis knows, there
fore. that he did not vote for local
| option but that he voted against
statewide prohibition And hts Tn
sistence in his letter 70 the heaaquar-
iers committee OF the league that he
voted for local option" indicates very
clearly his present unwilling state OF
mind to bow 70 the will OF the MAORI
ty OF the people OF Virginia as ex-
pressed by the general assembly and
later on in the statewide election Let
It he clearly understood by the pro-
hibition people OF Virginia, no mat
ter what Mr. Davis may saw In his let
ter athat Mr.. Davis voted against
statewide prohibition
Second. Mr. Davis was aggressive
" hostile to statewide prohibition Mr.
Davis admits that he wrote a letter
TO Judge Geo L. Christian. the open
IL recognized leader of the wet"
forces In 1914. opposing statewide
prohibition. and declaring his inten-
ton to vote for local option" He
says; 81 was not otherwise active in
the campaign because thought II
was n question each man should de-
eide for himself
This statement Is utterly Illogical
and fatty contradictory. IF Mr.. Davis
/ thought the question of prohibition
was one that each man should decide
! decide for himself" why did he write
any letter at all to Judge Christian ?
II II was question that each man
should decide for himself" WHY did
/ he think II so important to state his
views to the people OF Virginia that
he resigned his position as president
| of the Virginia Farmers institute. In
order that he might endeavor to in
| fiuence the farmers of the state to
vote against statewide prohibition? II
Mr.. Davis thought It was n question
/ that each man should decide for
/ himself whv was his letter given
out at a critical period in the cam
/ paign when the wet" leaders and
wet" newspapers were loudly boast
| ing OF an assured victory. and why
were his picture and his letter printed
| in all the wet" newspapers of the
state and sent by the wet" leaders
| to the newspa pers of the state as paid
| advcrfidsO1 Thaaa sUaf' ,ea5are