Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1882-02-23
&eadimg.
From the Columbia Register.

| ~
From the Columbia Register.
LEGISLATION ON THE LIQUOR QUESTION
A very general desire is felt to know what
legislation was had on the subject Of intoxica
ting liquors, and what is the present lega
status Of the question.
The Legislature which has just adjourned
at it's first session in 1880, passed "An Act tc
further regulate the sale Of intoxicating liquors
in the State" by the provisions of which the
policy of prohibiting legislation was clearly
and definitely entered upon. The Act pro-
hibited all sale of intoxicating liquors Of every
kind whatsoever, outside Of the Incorporated
cities, towns and villages of the State, and laid
State license of S10O, in addition to the muni-
cipal license fee wherever the sale was carried
on under municipal authority. Heavy penal
ties of fine and Imprisonment were attached
to the violation upon the conviction before
any Court of competent jurisdiction. Inns
ultra revolution in the venerable policy OF the
State was not made without determined and
violent opposition both in and out of the Leg
islature. The principal opposition came from
LIQUOR interest in the larger cities and towns,
taking organized form in Charleston only,
where an association was formed and funds
pledged to wage war against the movement,
and after the passage of the Act to hinder and
frustrate its execution. Elsewhere through
out the State opposition took no organized
shape the liquor interest being comparatively
small. Great fears were entertained that the
violent demonstrations of the opponents OF
the law would affect the integrity OF the
Democratic party and lead to its disruption.
This fear was, doubtless, honestly entertained
by many who were both loyal to the party and
anxious to limit and control the evils OF the
liquor traffic.
The law was openly and de6antly disregard
ed in the city Of Charleston, where the lnf1u-
ence and means Of the liquor dealers secured
to their counsel and aid eminent legal ability,
and in the county, such was the indifference OF
the county officers, the statement was endors-
ed by them subsequently in their appeal to the
Legislature to repeal the law that there was "a
bar-room in every fence corner Of the county"
In other parts of the State the law went quiet
ly and without resistance into operation, al
though, of course illicit traffic was carried on
to greater or less extent in most OF the coun-
ties. In several instances, however, in the
earlier part of the year, the parties offending
were indicted and the Courts promptly en-
forced the penalties, and afterwards there was
general acquiescence in the requirements OF
the law.
It was not to be expected, however, that the
important influence controlled by the liquor
dealers of Charleston, which had so successful
ly resisted the law in that city, would surren;:
der without desperate effort to repeal II, and
accordingly, on the reassembling Of the Legis-
lature in December last, among the first meas
ures introduced by their representatives from
Charleston and several other points in the low
country we're several bills for the repeal Of the
law so far as it related to the county OF Char
lesion and portion Of the county OF Colleton.
These measures were not pressed until late IN
the session, and, in the meantime, the most
conclusive evidence was furnished to the Leg
islature that the large business interests out
side the liquor trade and the general senti-
ment Of the community in those counties were
opposed to any disturbance of the existing law,
ercept to secure its better enforcement.
In consequence of this two bills were report
ed by the Charleston delegation, which pro-
posed to except the county Of Charleston from
the operations of the Act of 1880 and re-enact
and declare of force the Act Of 1874 ; the effect
Of which would have been to reopen the traffic
outside of the incorporated limits and give the
authority to the County Commissioners to
grant licenses. In support Of these bills it was
urged that the existing law was openly d!sre-
garded, and that although liquor was sold in
every fence corner of the county, the authori-
ties could not stop it, and thus the county had
all the evils Of an enormous increase OF the
traffic without the revenue which had been de-
rived from the licenses under the Act of 1874
The passage of this measure was vigorously
pressed by the able Charleston delegation with
the exception of Messrs. McCrady and Egan,
but it was killed on the second reading by an
overwhelming majority, and as expressive OF
their views on this branch Of the subject, the
Legislature passed an amendment to the Act
providing for it's better enforcement. The
provisions of this amendment are:
s'That any person violating any OF the pro-
visions of this Act shall, upon conviction
thereof. be fined in sum of not less than two
hundred dollars, or imprisoned for term OF
not less than six months, or both fined and i'm
prisoned, in the discretion of the Court trying
the case Provided, That all fines imposed and
collected on any conviction under this Act
shall be paid to the County Commissioners, to
be kept apart by them as fund to pay officers
for their services in detecting and reporting
violations of this Act.''
One other effort was made to reopen the
traffic outside of interpretations. This was a
bill introduced by Mr.. Bissell, Of Colleton, to
except certain portion of that county from
the operations of the Act Of 1880, and to per-
ses to worthy persons to sell only to persons
whose employment required them ito work in
wind and water" 1t was claimed for this
measure that it was necessary to enable the
phosphate diggers and ricefeld hands to pro-
cure liquor in small quantities. and that in
the absence of such facilities they procured it
from distance in large quantities, and IN
creased drunkenness was the result. The rea-
soning did not seem to strike the Legislature
as either forcible or logical, and the bill met
the same fate as the Charleston measure.
A similar fate was shared in an effort orlgl-
mating in the Senate to change entirely the
prohibitory policy of the existing law.
Mr.. Lartigue, of Barnwell, introduced
bill as q substitute for similar one, providing
that the municipal authorities of any incorpo-
rated city, town or village of one hundred
qualified voters or more might submit to the
qualified voters the question whether intoxlca-
ting liquors shall be sold !; and if the majority
of voters voting thereon vote in favor Of such
sale, the municipal authorities shall employ
discreet and suitable persons, to be known as
retailers, mot more than one to every one hum
dred voters to sell such Intoxicating liquors
in quantities of not less than one gill nor more
than FIVE gallons. The retailers to enter into
bond for the faithful discharge OF their duties
That the municipal authorities shall pur-
chase and furnish to said retailers all intoxl-
eating liquors authorized to be sold in such
quantities as may be necessary to supply the
demand, procuring the same where it is practi-
cable to do so, at the true cost price from the
retail liquor dealers of such Incorporated city,
town OF village licensed under existing proyis-
ions of law liquors to be of standard quality
and unadulterated retailers not to sell to mi
nors or to persons who are apparently under
the influence of liquor; no other goods to be
sold at the place where such Intoxicating, llq-
uors are kept and sold. Liquors to be sold at
a nrOft of one hundred Der cent. Native