The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1920-03-12

:. A statement was presented to the
committee by Hons. W. l. Joyce. Of
Patrick county. and Wilbur c. Hall, Of
Loudoun. two Of the patrons Of the
resolution, asking for the investiga-
ton OF Hhe department, which stated
to the effect that the joint resolution
upon which the committee was acting
had been delayed SO long In the senate.
that its object had In part been ac-
complished by the selection Of a pio-
hibition commissioner, and that they
had no desire to appear before tho
committee.
I. Senator Deal. OF Norfolk city. filed
by request with the committee. peti-
ton signed by certain Norfolk citizens.
and to this petition there was attached
q Newspaper clipping which stated that
a negro man had been placed under ar
rest In Richmond charged with trans
porting liquor, and that in his defense
the negro had presented q permit from
the office OF the commissioner Of pro-
hfbition. and that the police justice of
the city of Richmond had dismissed the
case. Senator Deal stated that he had
no charges to prefer and explained that
he was submitting the petition to the
committee by the request of the sign
ers.
5. Hon. +, l. Felts. q member Of the
house OF delegates, from the county OF
Carroll. appeared and filed certain sf-
ddavits criticising the department for
not cooperating with the local officials
OF the town of Pocahontas and for not
cooperating with an employe Of his
who had also qualified as . deputy
sheriff Of the county Of farewell and
located At Pocahontas. and Of alleged
misconduct OF two Of the inspectors OF
the department Of prohibition. while
making certain Investigations In tao
town OF Pocahontas. Mr.. Felts stated
that 1t was not his purpose to make
charges against the prohibition depart
ment, but In q manner of criticism he
might help the department Mr.. Felts
suggested that the annual report Of
the department had failed to giye
proper credit to the officers of the To-
calities in the totals published in the
report Of arrests made. convictions and
fines collected. Mr.. Felts disclaimed
ment whatever. stating that he came To
criticise and to help. Mr.. Felts also
criticised the department for not ar
EfereutiAtinK In itM annual renoff ne
tween arrests made conrfEtfoHs hAd
and hnes collected by local officers and
officers OF the prohibition department..
s. After having fully heard the com
plants above enumerated, the commit
tee again called for such other charges
desire to make against the department
for against the prohibition commits
sioner, and no further complaints being
made and no charges being preferred.
the committee called on DR.. J. Sid
ney Peters. comm issioner Of prohibf-
ton. for a statement in relation to
the newspaper article appearing in The
Norfolk paper, and also tho statement
OF Mr.. FeIts. DR.. Peters stated ~ fol-
lows: That tho permit referred to In
the newspaper artirle attached to the
petition presented by Senator Deal
had been issued By the department TO
. highly reputable citizen % Rich
rnond city. under full authority OF
law. for the purpose OF bringing to
the city whfskey for medicinal pu--
poses for his son. who was suffering
with tuberculosis: and that the negro
was the messenger OF said citizen who
had been sent after the whiskey. DR..
Peters further stated that there was
strong suspicion that the negro had
abused the privilege Of the permit. but
after that investigation he was unable
to obtain sufficient evidence to prove
this.
Prior to this the negro had been
Investigated by the police justice Of
the city Of Richmond, before whom he
was arraigned by police officers and
dismissed.
Tho commissioner Of prohibition In
reply to Criticism of Delegate Fselts
stated that IL was the almost invari-
able rule Of the department to COOP.
crate with local officers. but that In
the Pocahontas instance he had NOT
done this for the reason that he had
been requested by some local citixene
to Investigate the conduct OF some of
the local officers themselves. for whicn
purpose he had sent to the town OF pu-
cahontas two OF his most reliable In
spectors. said Inspectors while maxi
Ing these Investigations and before
making any arrests. as result there-
officers on the charge Of carrying con-
ceaied weapons. which charge was dis
missed after their identity and Official
position was disclosed. thereby hin-
dering them In the further discharge
Of their duties at that place. One Ut
these inspectors was Mr.. r.. III. StaIey,
who il now In the employ Of the
United States revenue department. who
was not present. The other inspec
tor was Mr.. 8. L. Chase. who was at
the committee meeting and who sub
stanttated the statement OF the COM
missioner. and Indignantly denied any
allegation OF improper conduct on the
part Of himself and associate inspec-
tor. Mr.. Staley..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I-GtGtS 1uItaGf eX>
planned In reply to the criticisms OF
Delegate Felts that tho report did not
differentiate between the activities OF
local and department officials, that the
law did not require such differentiation
and that u would be unwias TO at
tempt to make Il and that Ia many In
stances arrests and convtctlons would
be the result Of the jelo& action OF 10.
cal officers and Representatives. 81 his
I,a~naz1zse,kssesbdks4k A4s RcFk 80 Sais
vide the credit for arseeta, convactisns
and nnes would havA resulted IA con-
fusion and 1ealousIcs injHrioas 70 The
enforcement Of the law.
Senator 9. Walter Mapp made d
abatement before the committee eivimx
In detail the history Of the lnvestigas-
ing resolution from the time H. AD-
peAred In the senate. In. which ne
stated that on the 33rd day Of Feb
rttxry tfs fSS0t1tfon wa referred ID
the committee of which he WA chair
man. he called Il special meeting ~
the committee ~ moral ana social wol-
kaso Tor the following AAy 10 considor
~ giytag n0tlAe fn psenoe ~ Dslegate
"a.