Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1921-02-25
POCA. OUTRAGE
is CONDEMNED
Correspondent Reviews Good
Work Done BY Mr.. Hickman
When Prohibition Fight
Was On in That Town
Graham, Va, Feb. 10.
(Communicated.)

tItlS MCth QOOuI liiG Va
the Baptist parsonage, occupied by
Rev. w. X. Hickman and family. Ev-
cry decent man concurs with you in
the sentiments expressed. In think
ing over the matter the writer's
mind goes back over a period of five
years, and he has some thoughts he
would like to express if you will give
them space. Having lived mt Poca-
hontas nearly rs years l am some
what familiar with my subject. And
If the article is little long / ask
the reader to finish it if he begins.
The writer is reminded of an art
icle sent out from TaZewell in the
summer of 1916 bearing on the con-
dltions in PocahontaS with regard to
the liquor cases. In reading that art
icle one would naturally get the i'm
preston that there was only one
man in Pocahontas who had the
courage to stand up for law enforce
ment. The statement was made that
there came a time in the proceed
ings when Mr.. Rickman needed just
one man to come to his assistance,
and for long time this one man
could not be found. In other words
reflection on all the people of Poca-
hontas except Mr.. Hickman, notwith-
standing the fact that the town voted
dry by good majority in the local
option contest few years previous
(and their election declared invalid
by the judge in this district) and
the fact that the town voted two to
one in favor of prohibition in the
statewide election. These facts show
Enthusiastically that there is some pro-
hibition sentiment in the town.
To go back to the beginning of
the present fight. The Witten-Shu-
mate bill had passed the legislature
i'll 1916 and was before the senate be-
fore Pocahontas apeople knew that
such a bill was contemplated. Rev.
Hickman, without consulting a single !
individual so far as we knew left |
Immediately to lend his influence to
the passage Of the bill. Naturally he
became the. recognized leader of the |
dry forces. As to what the fate of
the bill would have been if he had
not gone we do not surmisc. But
one lone man could hardly have ac-
complished the passage of the bill
if he had not been backed up by ut
least representative element of
the community
But we are not debating that ques-
ton. The fact is he went and made
the fight. Pocahontas went under
prohibition May 1, 1916. six months
IN advance of the statewide law.
Since MIR. Rickman had, by the very
nature OF the circumstances, become
the leader of the people it was per-
fectly natural that they would ex-
pect him to take the iniative, or lead
ing part, IN seeing that the laws
were execute.
When the saloons were closed on
May 1 and the violations of law
commenced people began to get rest
less: Complaint after complaint was
made. Conditions were fast becom-
ing intolerab.e. If Mr.. Hickman had
not taken the iniative there would
have been Others. But, as stated
above, they naturally expected him
to take the leadership. And he took
IT, The results spoke for themselves.
Now, regarding the claim that
there came time in the proceedings
when Mr.. Rickman needed lust one
man to come to his assistance. and
for long time even this one man
could not be found. The facts are as
follows: Failing in the first attempt
at law enforcement Rev. Hickman. in
conjunction with the GERS of the
law, had planned to get search war
rants and search the premises of
certain ones suspected of being i'm
plicated in the business. Private cit-
lzens OF means and influence were
suspected. The police had been work.
ing up evidence. The question was
simply one of signing The warrants
as complainant in the cases. That is
when the crucial or testing time
came. A person does not like to sign
his name to a warrant against
nelghbor for many of the susnects
were neighbors of influence as stat
ed above) unless he is positive that
ne is in the right, or his neighbor
IS IN the wrong. Even then there are
those who would rather give their
neighbor an admonition to cease the
wrong if guilty, and give him an op-
Portunity to correct it, before sign
ing warrant against him. Further
more, most of the business men took
the view that the mayor an police
oificers We're sworn to uphold the
law, and that, being in position to
nave knowledge of the places and
homes that were suspected, it seem
ed to be the proper thing that thew
should be the ones to sign these war
rants. With most of the business
men and citizens generally it was
simply. a matter of hear say. There
We're few, if any, that could testify
OF their own knowledge of the gull
ty parties, and naturally would hesi-
tate to sign these warrants, especial
ly when it would mean the sever
ancc of business and other relations,
if any while with the officers there
was nothing to lose, as they were
sworn officers.
It seems to the writer that it is
a weakness Of the law if a citizen
cannot report conditions that he be.
lieves are wrong without the party
suspected having to know all about
it. The police should be and we be.
lieve they are given the right to look
into all reported violations, and il
they find the conditions warrant tt
bring the offender before the court
1t becomes an extremely personal
matter for one to go to a migistrat,
and make complaint on oath agains
n narS0n and r1n1cco a mon ho,