The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-19

must refuse employment to persons shown
to be drunkards, under penalty OF not less
than one hundred dollars, nor more than
three hundred dollars. They who sell or
give spirituous liquors to persons to whom it
is made unlawful to sell or give them, are
held liable for all damages arising from their
action. These are the main provisions OF
the bill.
1t is painfully evident that tippling is
only too general in the Southern States, and
any law-maker who can check the flow OF
whiskey and encourage the growth OF tenn
perate habits will have done good work for
his people. But we have no expectation
that any law, such as that which is now be-
fore the Legislature, will have the slightest
effect upon the members of that body, or
upon their constituents. Statutes OF broader
scope and wider reach have failed to prevent
drunkenness, or have increased the number OF
inebriates. In Maine and in Massachusetts,
where prohibitory laws are in full force, it is
really as easy to obtain liquor as in South
Carolina. Is it not notorious that an open
barroom is kept in one Of the largest hotels
in Boston? During the war, in towns under
military occupation, the sale OF liquors, ex-
cept upon medical certificate, was strictly
forbidden. The only result was that the
thirsty tippler found it necessary to sneak
into back-room, and swig ''iron-clad"
whiskey out OF a cracked tumbler 10 these
cases there was more secrecy, and more
drunkenness. The very difficulty OF obtain
ing liquor excited the appetite, and made
confirmed drunkards OF men who would not
have dreamed OF tippiDg if they had found
barroom at every street corner. And II
only bad results follow laws like those which
obtain in New England, what benefit could
be looked for from law go complicated and
impractcable a5 thatupon which the Judici-
ary Committee make favorable report?
Is it likely, we ask, that County Commits
sioners or Mayors would designate, in writ
ing, oil habitual drunkards? They might
make dead-set at some poor wretch who
was found lying in the gutter, and could not
plead "Hrst offence" in extenuation OF his
fault. They would not touch The very per-
sons whom it would be most desirable to
reach. But let it be supposed that they did
their work fairly and completely. The per-
sons whom they designated Us drunkards
would..become pariahs in the community.
They would be cut oil from all employment,
and be added to The long roll OF vagrants
and beggars. With the gates barred be-
hind them, they would have no incentive
TO reform. No subsequent reversal OF the
decree could clear them from the disgrace OF
having been proclaimed to be habltual
drunkards. And no law could prevent them
from obtaining liquor as long as they could
find The money to pay for it. They would
drown their sorrows in the bowl, and be
driven, not to reform, but to despair.
The section of the bill which prohibits an
corporated companies from employing per-
sons Of Incorporate habits is an absurdity
These companies, out of regartAfor their own
interest, will do what no law can compel
them to do. Their regard for the economi-
cal use of their property, and for The proper
disbursement OF their funds, requires them
to employ trustworthy persons, and their I'd
mitted responsibility for all dam age or loss
caused by the shortcomings Of their officers
is sufficient to deter them from Willingly re-
tanning ineUriates in their service.
We say frankly that, in the present temper
of the public, no legislation on The subject
of drunkenness can be expected to produce
q beneficial effect. Until the habits OF the
people are changed, until they accustom
themselves to live with less excitement,
until they abandon the fiery brandes and
whiskies for light wines and malt liquors,
there is little hope of change for the
better. The temperance societies may ac-
complish something. Well-directed instruc-
ton and education can do more. Half
way legislation will do little or nothing.