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

strikes another. His influence for tenn.
peraDce would be worth more if he hated
temperance, and yet voted for temperance
measures.
Mr. Clinkscalcs quotes the examples
of Iowa, Barnwell, Oconee aud 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 s.ron.
ger than it was when the law was passed.
Ia the City Of Anderson, the majority of
the white people favor prohibition.
Taxing 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.. CliukscaIes fail to establish
bis theory. There is, in our opinion, no
danger from leaving the settlement Of
the whiskcy question to vote of the
people by Counties.
Mr.. Clinkscales next charges Us with
intending TO bolt the Democratic nomi.
nation Such charge is utterly without
the scmbiance 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.
tor, for if prohibition ticket cannot be
elected in the Primary, it capnot be
elected at all and what is more, IL it
canno; be elected in the Primaries it
ought not to be elected ut all, and Mr.
CIinkscales may be certain that if there
j. 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 ia 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 i,
now. If the people are not willing to en-.
fnrcc prohibition, aud for this reason we
prefer an election to test the sentiment
on the question. Attempts to enforce
prohibition in towns has frequently been
II failure, but when it is made absolute
by Counties. it has proven 70 satisfactory
that none that have tried it, have gone
back to license. Mr.. Clinkscales blow,
hot and cold in the Same article. liz
accuses US Of favoting prohibition be
cause it il the popular side Of the ques
tion, and yet in the came breath he con
tends that the majority Of the people o
the County are opposed to prohibition
Both of these positions cannot be correct
and Mr.. Clinkscaes must think the peo
pie have very little perception to DO mis-
led by such illogical statements.
We have never charged Mr.. Clinkscale
with being responsible for the failure O
this bill. We think he had very little t
do with this or any other legislation
All that We have charged is that, as fa
as lie could, he gave his influence agains
tho bill. II Is true the bill could not b,
passed when opposed in the House
without being also introduced in til,
Senate. This makes our Senator, ant
the two members whose influence pre-
vented the bill being introduced in tn,
Senate, responsible for the failure.
Mr.. Ciinkscales need not multipl,
words further about this matter. Til,
people understand him. They know hi
position and his purpose. He 10 clumsy
dodger M his article, which We publisl
rerbatim ct Gterntim, this week proves.