The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-02-26

sEs -!
strikes another. His influence for tenn.
perance would be worth more if he hated
temperance, and yet voted for temperance
measures.
Mr.. Clinkscale. quotes the examples
of Iowa, Barnwell, Ocouee and Ander-
son. Iowa gave larger Republican ma
jority last year than it did two years ago.
The majority of the people of Barnwell
are Strongly in favor Of the law. In
Oconee the cause of temperance is stron.
ger than it was when the law was passed.
In the City of Anderson, the majority of
the white people favor prohibition.
Taking out the saloon keepers and those
interested in the whiskey traffic, there
are two thirds of the white people here
in favor of prohibition, so the Instances
given by Mr.. Cliukscales fail to establish
his theory. There is, in our opinion, no
danger from leaving the settlement Of
thu whiskey question to a vote of the
people by Counties.
Mr.. Clinkscales next charges US with
intending to bolt the Democratic nomi'
nation. Such a charge is utterly without
the semblance of reason or foundation.
We said that there would probably be q
prohibition ticket run for all of the Offices
from Senator down, in the next election,
but of course we meant the Primary Elec.
ton, for if prohibition ticket cannot be
elected in the Primary, it caDnot be
elected at all and what is more, it it
cannot be elected in the Primaries it
ought. not to be elected at all, and Mr..
Clinkscales may be certain that if there
is no Independent ticket run until the
temperance men run it, there will never
be one in this County.
He says that we have squirmed upon
the whiskey question because we said in
an editorial about our town government
that we preferred regulation to attempted
prohibition. This was in an article upon
our town government. We preferred
regulation to an attempt at prohibition
Without the sentiment of the people be.
ing ready for prohibition. We prefer it
now, if the people are not willing to en-
force prohibition, and for this reason we
prefer an election to test the sentiment
on the question. Attempts to enforce
prohibition in towns has frequently been
failure, but when it is made absolute
by Counties, 1T has proven go satisfactory
that none that have tried it, have gone
back to license. Mr.. Clinkscales blows
hot and cold in the same article. He
accuses US of favoring prohibition be-
cause tits the popular side of the ques-
tioD, aud yetin the same breath he con.
tends that the majority Of the people Of
the County are opposed to prohibition.
Both of these positions cannot be correct,
and Mr.. Clinkscales must think the .peo-
pie have very little perception to be mis-
led by such illogical. statements.
We have never charged Mr.. Clinkscales
with being responsible for the failure of
this bill. We e.think he had very little to
do with this or any other legislation.
ALI that We have charged is that, as far
as he could, he gave his influence against
the bill. It is true the bill could not be
passed when opposed in the House.
without being also introduced in the
Senate. This makes our Senator, and
the two members whose influence pre-
vented the bill being introduced in the
Senate, responsible for the failure.
Mr.. Cinkscales need not multiply
words further about this matter. The
people understand him. They knon his
position and hispurpose. He is a clumsy
dodger, as his article, which we publish
verbatim ct Meratim, this week proves.