The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-08-27
RESULT OF THE VIRGINIA PRIMARY

There has been much speculation
and misrepresentation as to the re-
suits OF the primary held August S.
The wet" newspapers of the state,
led by the Times Dispatch, have car
ried on during the campaign, and
since the campaign. a propaganda to
discredit prohibition, and especially
the prohibition commissioners depart
ment. We might as well try to get
the truth about the cause of the
world war, ard the results OF the war
from Germany, as to expect to get a
correct analysis of the last primary
in Virginia from wet newspapers and
wet interests OF the state. From the
best information possible the facts are
as follows:
First. That no candidate for either
rouse OF the general assembly made
this campaign In opposition to prohi-
bition. but against the present method
of enforcing the prohibition law, with
only two exceptions, that Of Mr.. Blu
ford of Brunswick county. who re
signed the office Of commonwealth
attorney, giving MS his reason that no
could not conscientiously enforce tho
present prohibition law, and W. T
Oliver of Fairfax county Yet 1t is
doubtful whether any person in Mr..
divers district regarded him as OPP
posed to prohibition. With the cleo
possibly ten members OF the lower
house yet undecided in Virginia. It IL
conceded that an overwhelming ma
jority OF. both houses are IN favor
OF prohibition. and good safe ma
jority Of the reinforcement de-
partment.
Second. The results Of the primary
prove that prohibition Is not settled
issue In Virginia. When Westmore-
land Davis was a candidate for gov
ernor, he contended that prohibition
was not an Issue, that that was settled
when an overwhelming majority OF
our people voted for prohibition. and
practically all Of the wet candidates
for office since the gubernatorial cam
paign have commended that prohibition
was a settled issue. And though a
great majority OF the people have be-
l,eved that that was true, vet there
has been determined. persistent and
aggressive campaign made against the
aw-enforcement department
The Times Dispatch, a notoriously
wet newspaper and the Southern
Planter, the organ OF the present gov
arnor have also carried on a vigor-
Gus propaganda against the law-en-
forcement department. These publica-
tons. combined with other wet inter-
ests. have commended that the law can
be enforced more economically and
effectively by the local authorities
than by the state enforcement de-
nartment, and that by the abolition
Of this department, the state would
save from $780, 900 to $25O,000 a year
These wet propagandists knew, or
could have known that from the ac-
tivities OF this department there was
collected In fnes the sum OF $101.69O.
and from the sale OF stamps. permits
and conhscated ardent spirits. $23,4s0.
and the total expenditures for the year
OF the department were $39.908. leav-
ing net gain to the state for educa-
tional purposes OF ss5.2s2. besides the
saving OF $4,000 for criminal ex-
,penses.
Third. TIE results show conclu-
sively, upon the face OF the returns,
that the dry forces have not lost faith
In the Acknowledgement department,
for in districts where there were two
men who favored the department, and
one man opposed to the department
contending for membership in the
senate, one Of the dry men in every
case was elected. and that In spite of
the fact that the dry forces were d.
vided. There were four members OF
the senate. and possibly six or seven
OF tho house. elected on the question