The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1840-01-18

any ICtaIieT tIeTeOI, SHOULD, TOtu ana d.
ter the 2 l,h day of June 1876, be possess
ell of, there should be granted to his Ma
jesly, duty of twenty shillings per gal
lon." quote the very words of the act
as found in Rapin's History of England,
Vol. Xxx. page 302. This act applied to
all spurious liquors as well domestic as
foreign. Here then was a duty Of one
pound sterling, (Which in our money
amounts to four dollars and forty four
! ccnts.) which the consumer had to pay to
government, upon every gallnn of liquor
that lie purchased. In other words, the
| law Was, in effect, a total prohibition of
the use of ardent spirits. And this is the
law which the Chairman gravely referred
to, as measure similar TO that proposed
by the friends of reform at this day, and
from which we are TO learn the lesson Of
experience. "Mark now, how plain tale
has been put down." What are we to in
fer? Can 1t be that the Chairman was him
self, ignorant of the provisions of that
act, with whrh he was making puny ef-
fort to damn the cause Of temperance! Or
did he, knowing it himself presume upon
he ignorance of others? If the Chairman
was acquainted with the whole history Of
this act, this argument, | am forced to
say, was in the highest degree disingenu-
Gus and unfair: better becoming the pre-
JUDGED advocate Of party, than the dig
niicd position Of Legislator. If he was
ignorant, | hope the Chairman will be
better informed, when he next undertakes
to legislate for the enl ghtened communi-
ty of South Carolina. He is very young
man understand, and trust, will profit
by experience.
If the advocates Of reform at this day,
had proposed passing a law prohibiting
the introduction Of all spurious liquors in
to the country, or forbidding the use of it
in mans own house, then there would
have been some analogy in the law refer
red to, and some propriety in introducing
it in the Report. But what is the fact!
We propose, simply, to prohibit, not the
selling even Of gill, but the drinking in
/ public dram shop; not interfering either
With the price or quantity sold. Now, is
here any similarity between law prohib-
ting the use of liquor entirely, and one
simply preventing man from getting
Trunk in the streets! Blu, have not yet :
old the whole story; and | am much in
!ebsed to the Chairman, for the opportu-
ity afforded me, of bringing this histori-
al fact before the people of S. Carolina
The Chairman informs his constituents,
hat the bill became "odions and con.
and was repealed, leaving US t
D infer that it was repealed because it was z
odous and contemplate" "-omitting, eli q
1er through ignorance or design, to give f
1e true reason of its repeal. The avow- e
d reaeou with the Ministry for wishing n
It repeal of the act Of 1876, was to raise Ii
lpplirs for supporting the war which O
le King was then carrying on, in league n
ith the Queen OF Hungary, against g
rance. The historian thus explains the Il
peal Of the act "The exigencv was o
'essng and it was hard to find out a fund O
at could supply it time enough for the 81
Irpnses Of government. An alteration, O.
ererorc, of the duties upon spurious IL 81
,ors was thought of. 1t was dangerous al
:pc,'icnt &C." "This act (repealing the p,
Ity on Iquors) in the House Of Lords, nc
ct with an unusual and vigorous opposi- c,
'n." Again he says. "In the course of
G debate the friends Of the bill (for re- ar
aling the duty,) did not give themselves tn
lch trouble to justify it upon principles! pc
1t they coutendcd that the government fr
ght to avail itself Of the passions which 10
could not restrain, and that the opera FL
ms of the war depended upon its sue
S." Here then we have the true cause
the repeal of the duty upon spirituous pu
uors, given by the Historian himself E,
e duty then was not repealed, as the H;
airman would leave us to infer, because ca
, law had become "odious and con. DR.
nptible," but because "the operations wi
the war depended upon its repeal" Bu
There was still another cause at work lin
ich initiated against the successful en- he
cement of the act of 1876, and had sla
ch weight in causing it to be repealed. {
e merchants Of Liverpool sent up Pc rel
on 10 Parliament, setting forth that the int
lscovado sugars constituted the chief, ca,
icle of trade, with the British West In vo
S, three fourth parts of which sugars Err
aid not be consumed without being re- les
ed, and very large portion, in the re- ,ha
ing process, turned out Rum. They the
,ceedcd to declare that ga duty of 20 no