University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XV

PROHIBITION AND OTHER ISSUES

The removal of the race question from politics has brought
to the front other political issues during the twenty years that
followed. Referendums have been held and campaigns have
been waged on such questions as better schools, prohibition,
tax reform, the budget, improved city government, and good
roads. Although the Democratic party has no appreciable
opposition except in the Southwest, hard fought campaigns
have developed in the primary elections, and when issues
were met in referendums. Although, in state politics, Virginia
lacks the stimulus which comes from the struggle between
rival parties, it is saved from partisan bias which is
often a curse in party politics. Questions have been decided
on their merits and not along lines of party expediency.

The first candidate to be elected by popular vote as Superintendent
of Public Instruction was Joseph Dupuy Eggleston,
of Prince Edward County. His aggressive campaign gave
further impetus to the revival of interest in education which
was already under way.

Perhaps the most important general issue during these
years has been prohibition. Temperance had been a moral
issue before the war of 1861; and had it not been for that
event it would, doubtless, have appeared in politics long before
it did. Temperance societies were organized in Virginia
fully a generation before 1860, and the Sons of Temperance
was an active organization of ante-bellum days. Scores of
petitions advocating legal restrictions on the liquor traffic
were sent the legislature.

The chief temperance advocate in those days was Lucian

Minor, a native of Louisa County, Virginia, who devoted the
last twelve to fifteen years of his life to the cause. He was
an earnest, fluent, and convincing speaker. His gifted style
and his ability to array useful statistics in behalf of his arguments
opened to him the columns of newspapers which would
have ignored a less capable and influential author. His
pamphlet entitled "Reasons for Abolishing the Liquor Traffic,"
published in 1853, was considered by the Southern Literary
Messenger[1] to be "by far the ablest production on the
subject which has anywhere appeared." He was not radical
in his temperance views, however. A man might keep whiskey
in his house, he thought, for his own use, or for the purpose
of treating his friends. His chief attacks were against
the evils of the liquor traffic. The following extracts from
this pamphlet give[2] some idea of the force of his arguments:
"It is the great duty of society to protect itself and its people
against wrong and evil, whether coming by violence, or fraud,
or pernicious and corrupting allurements. * * * No sane
man ever deemed such a protecting law invasive of individual
right, or freedom, because no sane man ever deemed freedom
to be the right of doing mischief with impunity. * * * He
[the citizen] is not a free agent. * * * the law so earnestly
aims to prevent the beginnings of evil (obstare principiis)
that it will not let me, or any of you play a game of
whist, vingt-un, loo, or solitaire, at a hotel or racefield, even
without betting. * * * There is no hope of arresting
this mighty tide of evil but by prohibition. Moral suasion,
addressed to the dealers, has utterly failed. * * * Legal
suasion offers the sole hope of inducing those to quit their
quest of gain, with whom dollars and cents outweigh all the
promptings of public spirit, kindness, and justice. * * *
Every dollar he [the liquor dealer] receives instead of testifying
to the good he has done, is a memorial to the mischief
he has spread around him. * * * His coin should be inscribed,
`This quarter of a dollar certifies that the bearer has
made a man beat his wife,' `This nine-pence witnesses that
its owner caused a poor man to lie down by the wayside in a
winter night and freeze to death,' `This dollar is a memorial
of seven days and nights of wretchedness, which were given
to a whole family in exchange for it,' `This bag of money certifies
that the owner has sent two of his neighbors to jail, and
their wives and children to the poor-house,' `The bearer
hereof caused a man to be murdered; for which the murderer
is in the penitentiary.' "[3]

Until local option undermined the liquor traffic, practically
every cross-roads store dispensed its full quota of ardent
spirits. It was not unusual for a small town or village to possess
several saloons which were often located on principal
corner lots. They did a flourishing business, especially on
Saturday afternoons, when white and colored alike came to
town to buy provisions from the local stores and to get the
mail. Whiskey circulated throughout the State by the thousands
of tons. According to the Federal statistics of 1885,
2,946 tons of liquors were carried over the Norfolk & Western
Railroad during that year, and 14,753 tons over the Chesapeake
& Ohio in Virginia. The Richmond & Petersburg
Railroad carried 1,337 barrels, and the other railroads of the
State carried their share of intoxicating freight.

In 1900, after the tide had begun to turn, there were
licensed by the State 59 wholesale dealers of liquor, and 31
of malt liquors; 43 manufacturers of liquor, 399 of brandy,
and 9 malt liquors; 1,795 retail dearlers of liquor, and one
of malt liquors.[4]

Public opinion in Virginia was slow in attacking the liquor
traffic. The people of the State had long looked upon whiskey

Governor, 1910-1914

as a necessary equipment of both the medicine-cabinet,
and the sideboard. And Virginians were not alone in this
opinion. Furthermore, they hesitated, as usual, to extend
government control over fields which are social in their
nature.

In 1886, the General Assembly provided for local option
in regard to the sale of liquor in magisterial districts, counties,
towns, and cities. The Mann Law of 1904, and the
Byrd-Mann Law of 1908 strengthened prohibition in local
areas. Judge William Hodges Mann, one of the leading advocates
of prohibition, became governor of the state in 1910. In
that year, state-wide prohibition became an issue. But an
enabling act for a referendum on the subject was defeated in
the Assembly. Two years later, a similar bill passed the
House and was defeated in the Senate. In 1914, the bill was
passed by a large majority in the House, and was accepted by
the Senate through the deciding vote of the chairman, Lieutenant-Governor
J. Taylor Ellyson. In that year prohibition
obtained in 71 of the 100 counties, in 16 of the 20 cities, and
in nearly all incorporated towns. In the election held on
September 22, 1914, there were 94,251 votes for, and 63,886
against, state-wide prohibition. The legislature accordingly
passed a stringent prohibition law, which went into effect on
November 1, 1916. The Assembly appointed as Commissioner
of Prohibition the secretary of the Anti-Saloon League.[5]

When the Eighteenth Amendment was submitted to the
legislature for its consideration, the State was already
legally dry. The amendment was ratified in January, 1918,
in the House by a vote of eighty-four to thirteen, and in the
Senate by a vote of thirty to eight. Virginia was the second
state of the Union to approve the amendment. Although
there are today many who claim that prohibition was somehow

presented to the majority against their will, and although
officers are hunting the elusive stills at all seasons, prohibition,
in Virginia at least, was the result of constant and increasing
moral and economic pressure exerted through many
years.

Taxation has always been one of the most difficult problems
of government. In 1910, the General Assembly appointed
a tax commission to investigate the existing tax laws
and their enforcement and to recommend reforms. Mr. Douglas
S. Freeman, of Richmond, was made expert member and
secretary of the commission. The commission's report of
1911 was the first extensive report on taxation, in Virginia.
Among the changes considered "absolutely essential" was
the appointment of a tax commission. On March 24, 1914,
the legislature named a Joint Committee on Tax Revision.
This committee pointed out the great inequalities which existed,
and proposed a number of reforms. "We are convinced,"
said the committee, "that the injustice now arising
from unequal assessments cannot be ended except by some
agency to support and guide assessors and commissioners of
the revenue in their work. It is intolerable that a small landholder
in Brunswick should be taxed six times as heavily as
a large landholder in Henrico. Something must be done to
assist the local officials to do their work properly, and relieve
them from the terrible pressure that now hampers their efficiency.
Such aid and relief can come only from a State Tax
Commission."[6]

The state debt question which had long been a factor in
Virginia politics and which had been settled as far as politicians
and the creditors of Virginia were concerned, now
arose in a new form. For twelve years, from 1906 to 1918, it
was the occasion of nine suits in the Supreme Court of the

Henry C. Stuart

Governor, 1914-1918

United States between the Commonwealth of Virginia and
the State of West Virginia.[7]

As early as 1866, the Virginia Assembly had appointed
commissioners to secure the reunion of West Virginia with
Virginia if possible, and if not, to adjust the debt question.
This and other attempts failed.

In the Funding Act of 1871, Virginia was released by the
bondholders from all responsibility for one-third of the certificates
which were to be paid in accordance with the settlement
which the State should make with West Virginia. In
1900, the State of Virginia made an arrangement with the
bondholders whereby they should give a commission control
of their certificates with the understanding that the bondholders
would accept what West Virginia should finally pay,
whether it be a third or less.

The following resolution passed by the legislature of West
Virginia in 1905 is typical of resolutions passed annually since
1860: "That the State of West Virginia does not owe any
part of the so-called Virginia debt, and that this legislature
is opposed to any negotiations whatever on the subject." In
1906, Virginia initiated the first of the series of cases, and the
decision was rendered in 1907. After five other litigations,
the case again came before the court, and in 1915, a decision
was rendered which was thought to be final. Mr. Justice
Hughes gave the opinion which met with the unanimous approval
of the Court. According to this opinion, West Virginia's
share of the debt was placed at $12,393,929.50.

West Virginia failed, however, to comply with the judgment,
and in 1916, Virginia, through its attorney general,
John Garland Pollard, submitted a motion for a writ of execution
against the State of West Virginia. The Court denied

the petition because the legislature of West Virginia had
not met in regular session since the decision had been rendered,
and had not, therefore, had the opportunity of abiding
by the Court's decision. After this the legislature met and
adjourned without making adequate provision.

Again West Virginia was called before the Court to show
cause why its legislature should not be mandamused to impose
a tax to meet its just obligations. In its final decision,
rendered in 1918, the Supreme Court held that the State of
West Virginia could be compelled "to discharge a plain duty
resting upon it under the constitution." The Court, however,
speaking through Mr. Chief Justice White, stated that they
would refrain from action "in order that full opportunity
may be afforded to Congress to exercise the power which it
undoubtedly possesses" of coercing the State if necessary.
There was no precedent in constitutional or in international
law to force West Virginia to comply with the judgment of
the Supreme Court. There was much speculation as to what
would happen if West Virginia continued in her disobedient
ways. Virginia was preparing to renew the fight when her
daughter had a change of heart and obeyed the Court's decree.
The ante-bellum debt question with which the State had contended
for a full half century was at last successfully and
finally buried.

The progress of the state government along the lines of
social reform, and of a needful paternalism, is shown by the
number of new agencies which have been created during the
last two decades to insure to the citizens the blessings of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are today separate
agencies. Among them are the Board of Charities
and Correction, a Commissioner of Labor, the Health Commissioner,
and the Dairy and Food Commissioner.

In 1918, Mr. Westmoreland Davis became governor of Virginia
on a platform of increased administrative efficiency and
fiscal reforms. His great achievement was the successful introduction
of the budget system. It was an interesting and

Westmoreland Davis

Governor, 1918-1922

somewhat amusing fact that the legislature which enacted
Virginia's first budget law showed the necessity for such action
by appropriating an amount for the next two years which
would have exceeded the revenue by about $3,000,000. The
Governor refused to accept the appropriation bill, and called
in conference the leaders in the Assembly. The appropriations
were judiciously cut and provision was made for more revenue.
It would be difficult for such a situation to arise under
the present system.

Although the many new commissions and other agencies
of government have resulted in much good, they have been
added from time to time without readjusting the former machinery
of government. This has caused additional decentralization,
and duplication of functions which has resulted
in useless waste and lost motion.

The Assembly, in 1922, provided for the appointment of a
committee on simplification of the state government.

In city government, a revolution has occurred since 1908,
when Staunton inaugurated the first government by city manager
in the United States. A civil engineer of Richmond, Virginia,
Charles B. Ashburner, was made general manager of
that city, and was given most of the administrative duties of
the old mayor and council, who were retained. Under this
plan of government, the general direction and policies of the
city are vested in a small council or commission, who choose
a city manager, in whom the chief administrative functions
are concentrated. Although only a few cities of more than
100,000—Norfolk (Virginia), Dayton (Ohio), and others—
have adopted the system, it has developed rapidly among the
smaller cities and has been most successful. There are now
(1923) 23 cities in Virginia and 311 cities in the United States
operating under the city manager plan. Professional city
managers are employed strictly on the merit basis.[8]

E. Lee Trinkle

Governor, 1922-1926

Since 1900, the advent of the automobile as a common
means of travel has given new impetus to the movement for
good roads. On March 6, 1906, the General Assembly created
a State Highway Commission. A State Highway System was
mapped out by the legislature, connecting cities, towns, and
courthouses of the State, and the county supervisors were requested
to indicate and develop the main county roads and
to connect them with the state highway system. Approximately
12,000 miles of highways have been included in county
"feeder" roads. The Highway Commission was authorized
to add annually to the state system not more than two and
one-half per cent of its mileage. In this way the State set out
to improve its 55,000 miles of public roads.

In order to secure funds, and to encourage local effort,
the Assembly in 1919 enacted the Robertson law which provides,
"That if any county or district, or private corporation,
or person, desires to immediately improve any section of the
State Highway System, within any county, which has been
designated as a part of the State Highway System, the State
Highway Commission may enter into an agreement with said
county officials or other parties, to finance the construction,
or reconstruction, of said highways, or section thereof; provided,
however, that the funds so advanced shall be without
interest. Provided, further, that the commission shall be
authorized to make repayment to said counties, or other parties,
annually as the funds are available, and are apportioned
for such construction or reconstruction, until the amount so
advanced has been repaid."

But sufficient funds were not available. The memories of
Readjuster days were so painfully vivid in the minds of the
authors of the Virginia Constitution of 1902, that they embodied
in that document a prohibition of the creation of any
debt by the State "except to meet casual deficits in the revenue,
to redeem a previous liability of the State, to suppress
insurrection, repel invasion, or defend the State in time of
war."

This restriction, as far as it applied to a debt incurred in
road building, was repealed by popular referendum in November,
1920. The General Assembly was given the right to issue
bonds for that purpose.

Since 1916, the State has received annual grants from the
United States Government under the Federal Aid Road Act
of Congress of that year. There is no provision for aid from
this source, however, after 1924.

The State Highway Commission was reorganized by Act
of March 24, 1922. At that time a heated debate occurred
on the question of issuing bonds to complete the 4,350 miles
of the present highway system. The Assembly did not reach
a final conclusion on this question but passed a law providing
a one mill tax and a three cent gas tax for road construction.

On February 28, 1923, Governor Trinkle called the General
Assembly in special session to consider the matter. This
Assembly referred to the people the question of a $50,000,000
bond issue and a two cent gas tax. In the referendum election
on the subject held in November, 1923, the bond issue was defeated
by a large majority.

Of the 4,350 miles of the State Highway, there are now
completed or under construction 260 miles of concrete, 687
miles of macadam, 238 miles of gravel, 428 miles of sand clay
and soil, and 152 miles of miscellaneous construction.

The people of Virginia have committed themselves to a
definite program of good roads regardless of what methods
they may use in securing the funds. They are convinced that
Virginia cannot come into her own until she ceases to be the
no-man's land of those that travel.

The problems thus briefly described, which have arisen
since 1900, show only that part of the State's activity in social
and economic relationships which have become political issues.
The state government has quietly assumed many new responsibilities
in order to meet the problems of a new age.

Water Power, Alleghany County