The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-04-02
Answering An Esteemed
Contemporary.

Asks the Charlottesville Progress:
is the strict and limitless enforce
ment OF the existing drastic pro-
visions OF the prohibition act worth
month after month"; We thank
our contemporary. for putting the
question. Before prohibition went
into effect in Virginia, or elsewhere
in the country, the lives of helpless
women and children were constantly
sacrificed by besotted husbands and
fathers whose affection and sense OF
duty were benumbed by the liquor
they poured down their threats.
Homss were rendered desolate, other
wise good men ruined by reason OF
their slavery to drink. Prohibition Is
fast changing all this. With the temp
tation removed, weak men are grow
ing strong, homes so long scenes OF
misery are Frightening and blossom
ing under the happier era that has
set in and gaunt-eyei women and
miserable children are rapidly being
transformed into normal human be-
ings. Is 1t woth while? Is 1t worth
the price? This is no treaciy temper
ance lecture. no sentimental mush
that we are offering; II is memorable
fact.
What lie the price, Vigilance,
eternal vigilance on the part OF the
prohibition officials whose sworn
duty II is to enfocre the law. Relax
this vigilance, wink at the Illicit
traffic In liquor. let the bootleggers
ply their trade in contraband whts'>sy
with impunity. and the state will re-
vert to condition contrasted with
which the days Of the open saloon
we're infinitely preferable. Which Is
the more desirable ? Wholesale deaths
of innocent women and helpless chill
dren, moral and Physical ruin to
weak but not necessarily bad men. or
the death of few iaw-breakirg.
sordid bootleggers whose unchecked
industry would presently disrupt the
state. Not that we believe II neces-
sary to kill the violators of the law in
order to discourage their Illicit prac-
tices. All that Is needed Is to have
the people of the state make 1t clear
20 their representatives In the legis-
lAture, to their newspapers, to the
public authorities generally that the
prohibition law must and shall be en-
forced.
Get public sentiment sauarely be-
hind the law and bookkeeping will he
so unpopular that 1t will sink into In
nocuous desuetude in short order.
Efforts to render the law naiodorouS.
10 encourage its violation by sinister
reflections on the officials whose duty
II is % enforce II, are uepIoraDle. le
Danyille Bee well says, that IT this
(prohi oition) law is permitted to be
ignored and its enforcement neg
lected such an attitude tends to break
down the enforcement of all law and
to that extent is suicidal folly" The
equally 1evel-headed stanton Leader
tsr guess The men shot were yiclat~
ing the law, and knowing they wee
taking great risk they were armed and
Ii is claimed one OF them fred the
first shot. Why did they carry arms
IL they did not expect TO use them In
defense OF their unlawful traffic?
Peacsable. Is.w-abiding travellers In
the Valley OF Virginia do not need to
20 armed: those who are violating the
law feel that It is necessary---neces-
sary for what?" There Is the crux
Of the argument II Is unanswerable
by apologists for the bootleggers in It's
pitiless logic. The Charlottesville
Progress thinks that If the depart
ynent OF prohibition does not alter It's
attitude I've viii soon become ridi-
culous," meaning the state. II TO alter
our attitude Is to become less alare,
less determined, the Progress. is right.
But we fear Its meaning is otherwise.
In that case, who is to point The
finger OF, scorn? The liquor rafflcll-
erS?