Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1840-01-01

ia measure similar TO that proposed by
tEe irie'i"s oi reform al this day. and from
whlrh We are 10 learn the lesson of cape
rIrIcc. MARX now, how plain tale has
.u, hiln down" What are we 10 infrr7
IAN II be har The Chairman was himself
ignorant OF The provisions Of lha, acl,
viii, hlrh he WAS making puny effort
10 damn The cause oi temperance! Or
did he, knowing il hiuSrf sie. tune upon
The ignorance of others? ]: The Chair
man 1ros ~ III h,e.w I the ole hislo-
:. ni IhI az. iii> al aisuiru,, AIN iUced
To say, was IN the highest degree disin-
geuuous aud unfair: httrer becoming The
prrjadiced advocate Uf n party, than the
tligntied posilinn Of a Legisaro'. lf he
was ignordnt, hope The Chairman will
I've be ter informed. WHEN he next under.
takes 10 lrgislale fDr the euishted COM,
muniry ,i South Carolina. He is rcry
young man understand, and trust. will
prof, by experience.
1.-THE advoc arcs Of reform al this day had
proposed passing law prohibiting ihs
introduction Of all spiriiuous liquors into
the country, or Iorbidding The use OF it in a
mans o,Un house, then there would lave
been snme analogy in the law referred to,
and some propreiv in introducing il in the
Report. But wha, is the facll Wepro
pose. SIMPLY. TO PROHIBIT, NOT THE
! SELLING EVEN OF A GfLL.BUT THEDRlEK-
ITG IN A PUBLIC DRAM SHOP; moi incrler-
ing either with the price or quantity sold.
Now. is there any similarity between
law prohibiting the nse Of liquor entirely,
aud onr simply preventing man from
getting drunk in Tie >lree:s! Bui have
MOI vet Told The whole sinry; and an, much
indebted 10 The Chairman, fur the oppor-
lunily afforded me, of bringing this historic
cal fact before the people Of S. Carnlina.
The Chairman informs his constituents
that the bill became ''Uirns and contpmp-
lible." and was repealed. leaving us to-
infer that il was :epealcd because il was
"odnus and ronlemptible"-omiting. Ell
rher through ignorance or design. 10 give
the true reason of its repeal. The arrwed
reason with the Ministry for wishing tho
repeal uf the act of l7;36. was TO raise sup
plies for supporting the ,rar which The
Kiug was then carrying on, in league
with the Queen Of Hungary. againet.
France. The historian thus explains tho.
repeal Of the act. "The exigenry was press.
inc and il was hard 10 finh oui fund that
could supply it time enough for the pur-
poses Of government. An alteration, there
fore. Of the duties upon spirituous liquors
was Thought Of. Ii was dangerous err
pedirm &C." "This acr (rcpealing the
duty on Iigunrs) in the House of Lords,
mel with an unusual and vigorous oppo-
sirion." Again he says, "ln the course Of
the debate the friends of The bill (for re-
peaing The duty.) did moi give themselves
| much trouble 10 justify il upon PRINCE
PIE! BuI they cunlended that the gov
ernment ought to avail itself Of the pas
sions " hrh i, could moi restrain, aud that
he operations Of The 'cor depended upon its
success" Here then we have The true
cause of the repeal of The duty upon spir-
ituou. liquors. given by The Historian him
SELF The duty then WAS not repealed, as
rhe Chairman would leave US 10 infer, be-
raus.. The law had become "Gdiuus aud
rnntemptihle.' hu, because 1.-THE operations
of!be lrnr dePcnde" ufon lis repeal"
There WAS It'll amher cause al work
nhrh mlilalrd ,rgain>i the successful en-
FIR nrni of the ar, of I756, aud had
much wright in causing il Ia be- repealed.
The merchants of Liverpool sent upa pc
tiii0n 10 ParlIamrn. setting forth that tho
Mu,rnratu sugars constituted the chief ar
liclr Of trade, with The British West In
dies. three ttrh parts ut which sugars
could not be consumed without heing r-fin-
ed, anil rery large porinn.in the refining
'k,,,x,
cd to declare Ihat "a dniv Of 20 shillinss
per gallon ou Rum would he The inevi,a-
lie ruin of the sugar plantations. and de-
slrrclinn efihe two uiuSt valuable hranch.
es Of "nr sugar trade ln The British colonies
ami l. coast of Africa" We see then
haI numerous interests were attacked by
mi, law, and opposition was thus aroused
un every hand. Here was n law rninous
10 h. mercantile interest nf the cnnniry-
de>lroyng the value of the w. Ini panra-
liuns-rutting off the revenue "i govern
mrnit-& arbitrarily withhold ne the bot
ill., from The lips Of the ,irnnkarh. have
nrw shown, b, Sond all cavl, that there is
noI The slightest sh dow nfrcs' mi lance he
tween the ar, of ParinmPn, Of l736, and
The measures proposed il Carolina at this
da>; and ,ha, there is eiill less similarity
il possible. belw cen lie moral character Of
the people OF q. Er,,ain in 1876. aid the
people of South Carolina III leS9. The
argnlnenl,ihertIurs, attempted t" he drawn
from lhe experience Of Great Britain ON
this subject is puerle aud false. aud falls TO
the ground The Chairman hadas well
argue thar because Pharaoh and his host
were overwhelmed in The Red sea. wo
should nev'r again undertake TO navigate
the ocean.
have d voted much more time 10 this
part of The Report than it deserves, or
should have received, but from the facial
! readv alluded to, iha, ii comes Firth under
! ,I,,, ;,,n,.;,,o oo,,a nc q committee of tho