The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-07-14
PETERS 0vERTHROWS
Continued from Page One.)

scriptions for the use of liquor; though
il must be admitted that the epidemic
Of influenza, which prevailed so wide
" during the fall and winter was
largely responsible for a great number
OF such prescriptions. All things con-
sidered, the commissioner OF prohibi =
ton deemed it best not to recommend
the renewal of the license on May /.
1919, when the license expired. and the
privilege ceased. For approving this
application in 1918 the commission er
was condemned and when he refused
I oapprove it in 1919 he was abused
for not approving IL.
This incident has given rise to many
rumors which have been enlarged and
embeliished according to the respec-
tive tastes OF the critics No exagGe-
ration, no downright faisehood. has
been overlooked so long as IL was cal
culated to bring discredit and scandal
upon the department or the commits
sioner Of prohibition, 1t was asserted
that Mr. Shield was the brother-in
law of the commissioner At the same
time IL was said that he was his
brother. his father in-law, and his
son in-law. The fact is that the COM
missioner never so much as heard Of
him prior to his application for the
license. Mr.. SHIELD is not related by
blood or marriage either to the COM
missioner or to any employe of the
department Of prohibition.
With the most infamous disregard OF
the truth and in the desperate effort
to destroy the reputation or the COM
missioner in the eyes Of the honest
people of Virginia, 1t was asserted that
he personally received a portion of the
profits made by Mr.. Shield 1t should
rot be necessary to assert that the
{ ON m issioner never received the value
of a postage stamp from Mr.. Shield
except what was paid for the liquor
purchased through the department.
from the proceeds of which all mon
eys were turned into the treasury Of
Virginia and ultimately into the school
fund. Such wanton ISLANDERS would not
be dtgnifed by denials except that to
pass them over in silence. might be
enormously construed.
The Case OF Miss II.
The charges against the department
of prohibition which have occasioned
the bitterest vituperation from many
sources. some of which are respect
a BILE. are that agents OF the department
nave been guilty OF inconsiderate and
even brutal conduct toward women
passengers In Pullman coaches TWO
cases Of such alleged misconduct have
been seized upon with special eager
given wide publicity by those
who were anxious to see the depart
ment brought into disrepute, One may
be called the case of Miss r. II was
that this lady was arrest.
20 upon a train leaving Washington
Tor her destination in the state of
North Carolina; that she was taken to
the Jail Of Alexandria county and
here confined In a dirty cell. together
v it'll negro women prisoners and that
i was subsequently, ascertained that
she was entirely innocent OF any wrong
doing. The facts are that the woms
N question was travelling from the
city OF Baltimore to city in North |
@aroisna in company with young man
about eighteen years of age. Inspec- |
'ers OF this department and several
deputies found her In seat with two
sgttcaHes containing several quarts Of |
/
Upon being questioned she stated !