The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1885-12-08

i~slation, and wound up by asking :: ;
What right has anybody to say that /,
living in Abbeville county and being in
favor Of licensing the sale Of liquor,
and being Il taxpayer of said county. |
county, what right, | say, has my one
to St,tlr my voice aud enact u law which
is directly against my interests ~ This
is the argument which any citizen Of
the county can r. again It the passage
Of the hill.
Mr.. %ll"Inpl.ill ma!c Il lw~"-m;nntcs'
sperc', III Saplcrt OF the bill. aal in
that little talk covered ihc whole
ground. His wo,tS carried weight
with them.
Col. L. W. McMaster ncxt obtained
the floor and made a brief but logical
and pcrS?icuous argumant against tn"
bill. A consistent advocate Of temper
ance in all things. he could not consent
to furthering what he conceived to he
incorporate legislation. The evils Of
i~ntcmperancc must be eliminated from
this debate, as they who advocate and
oppose the bill are alike cognizant Of
these evils and in common deprecnte
them. The argument advanced by tho
proponents Of the bill that over one
thousand men in Abbeville have signed
the petition asking for this special cleo
ton is really AT agnment in our favor,
for the greater portion of the people Of
that county do not express their opin-
ions, and it * to be presumed that they
are satisfied with the existing statutes
relative to the licensing of the liquor
business. This general law which is
now in force allows the Municipalities
to control absolutely the traffic while
prohibiting the sale Of liquors outside
the towns and villages. 1t is the DELHI
crate opinion Of the best and wiscst
temperance philosophers. who have
held conventions to discuss this qucS-
ton, that the best method of controll-
ing the giant evil of intcmperance is to
maintain high licences. This policy
contcmplates the increase Of revenue
from the licensed liquor sellers and the
decrease Of the number of bar rooms.
While having the deepest sympathy
with all moral agancies-the pulpit. the
press and the lecture platform-yet
when they seek to influence prohibit
ton by Legislation they usurp the prov
ince Of the State, and the injury done
is great. The interference OF one body
OF the people with another is the fruit
full source Of war, revolution and fcuds,
which deraStatc n country. 1t has
been the cry of the South that the in
reference Of New England caused all
our SORROWS. Let the families in Able.
vile county outside the towns attend to
their own business and not Interfere
with the inhabitants OF those munich
palities. The towns have the right to
allow the sale Of liquor md also to
adopt such police regulations AS will
suppress drunkenness. Let the Able
vile towns pursue the plan in vogue in
Colum bin. and when All offender is
drunk fine him $40 or ten days in Jail.
This will soon break up drunkenness.
Mr.. Davie said that he did not expect
to be dragged into this debute but, rep
%resentiug n county which is entirely
dry, he deemed it his duty to give the
memhers Of. the House the benefit of
such information Ak is drawn from the
experience Of Chester county. He pro-
cceded to show how the law has bone-
fitted his county, and, ,ndduced some
very interesting facts TO s~ustain. ths
position taken by the advocates Of the
bill. Although not a prohibitionist Him:
self, said he, yet he was heartily in ia
vor Of enacting the bill.
Mr.. Dawes argument was cmincntly
f"rcihle and practical and it had consid-
cradle weight with those who were dis
doscd u doubt whether the sumptuary
laws have wrought good in the counties
Of Chester and York.
The next speaker was Mr.. James Aid
rich, of Aiken. who argued with his nc.
customed ability against enacting the
law. His points clustered around the
general proposition that danger turks in
the liquor question. He maintained
that to further tamper with this whiSkev
question is t, invite disruption of the
Democratic party He described how
this diSorganiZation might come. When
the white voters of the State divide
upon this issue, the best people on one
side and the best people on the other
side, who will hold the balance Of DOW.
er, who will the controlling influence ?
-he negroes Of the State. Mr.. Aldrich
said that he had the warmcst regard for
the advocates Of these prohibition
me, suTcs. but he felt impellcd to warn
them and the Legislators not to proceed
further in this direction. He could fore
see how harm would surely come to the
Democratic party ard the State if this
liquor question shall be pressed.
Mr.. Dellingcr, Of %lsarnwcll. said that
he had not intended to say n word about
the bill. He felt it his duty to say to
the House that prohibition had been
tried in the county Of Barnwcll, and
that it had proved a signal failure. For
two years it has been thoroughly and
fairly tested in his county. and he did
did not hesitate to assert. and without
fear of contradiction. that during this
| tip,a ,noro 1,,h;,L,,, hol ho.s ..I1 -