The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-02-19
THE REASONS FOR PROHIBITION.

appeaTeu III tue lSiELLi'SNNbh ms
week, was frank statement of his oppo.
eition to the bill, and Of his reasons for
such opposition. Maj. Moore's card pre-.
sented the strongest reasons which can
be given for the opposition, but while
giving him credit for the unequivocal
and straight forward way in which he
answers the questions propounded, we
are compelled to express our dissent
from the sufliciency Of the reasons as
signed for the conclusion he reaches.
To begin with, we think Senator Moore
must be wrong as TO the date upon which
he was requested to aid in passing the
bill, for 1t WAS read in the House on the
18th, and We should think that the mem.
bers of the House Who favored the bill
would not have delayed looking to tho
Senate for so long time. But this is
outside Of our knowledge. Dir. Scudday
should explain why there was so long a
delay il Maj. Moore is correct.
The reasons assigned by the Judiciary
Committee of the Senate for not acting
upon this bill are an insul. to the people
Of Anderson County, and discreditable to
that Committee, for there is probably
not q member of the Committee, from
the Chairman down, who had not irtro
duced bills in the Senate which were
pending in tho House at the same time.
Indeed, it IL q notorious fact that the
Charleston delegation always at the very
beginning Of the session introduce
batch of bills in both Houses, and print
them in both Houses too and mala
times the bills thus pressed, are mere in
corporation Acts of quasi private nn.
ture. The economy Of the Committee
on this bill became amazing. The ma.
jority of the members Of that Committee
had voted for the largest appropriations
on every question, and for the first time
became economical when the printing of
short bill, which would not have cost
ten dollars, was concerned. The fact that
1t was doubtful about getting the bill
through, instead Of justifying the report
of the Committee, was the very reason
the bill should have been introduced in
the Senate to give 1t chance to get
through. The action of the Committee
was non.committal piece of nonsense.
The real trouble In the Senate, however,
is given when Maj. Moore states that he
is opposed to the bill, and therefore we
will proceed to review the arguments
which he gives against it. Maj. Moore
proclaims himselfin favor of temperance,
but opposes temperance legislation be.
cause he fears it will split the Democrat
ic party. This is the only reason as.
signed for his opposition. The princi.
pies Of the Democratic party require that
the majority shall rule and not minori-
ty. The bill which Maj. Moore opposes
provided simply to permit The majority
to rule. BY refusing to permit this, he
virtually admits that majority OF the
citizens Of this County favor prohibition,
for if such was not the case, the election
would cause no change and hence pro.
duce no trouble. If the majority favors
prohibition, then the course Maj. Moore
advocates destroys the Democratic doc
trine, that = majority of the people must
govern, and permits minority TO con.
troll. This is the utter destruction of the
Democratic party. The cry that pro.
posed legislation will split the Democrat.
ic party has been the favorite one since
1876 with those who oppose a measure
that they cannot defeat upon It's merits.
There is no reason given to show that
permitting the people of Anderson
County to vote upon prohibition will
split the Democratic party. There is no
force In such statement advanced as an
argument, for the facts will not support
It, It has never yet split the Democratic
party for the majority to rule UPON any
question of government. It wns anid
that the Democratic party would bo split
by the adoption of the stock law, but
such was not the case. The submission
Of the prohibition question in Georgia
has not split the Democratic party there,
and It Is impossible for US to conceive
any reasonable ground upon which the
submission of the question here should
split the party. All that we ask is that
she whole Of the voters Of the County
shal! have the right to vote upon the
question, and il majority Gays prohi.
bition then lot us have prohibition, and if
O majority says no prohibition then We
will not have prohibition. There will
be no Democrat or Republican about 1t.
1t will be settled outside Of politics Or
politicians. The people themselves will
determine IL, and it would be q cold
comfort that would be found In splitting
from the Democratic party because
majority of the voters of Anderson Coun.
ty are allowed to regulate their internal
nffairs.
q In North Carolina the question was
voted on as State question. We think
this was unwise, but still II did not hurt
the Democratic party. Much less could
hurt that party to permit vote upon
the question in a single County. 1t has
not hurt the Republican party in Maine
TO leave the question to q vote Of the peo-
pie Of that State, nor the same party In
Kansas and Iowa to submit the question
70 the people in those States. We re-.
4 peat that we cannot perceive how it will
shnst the Democratic party to take vote
in thia County upon the same issue.