The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-10-22
PRoH1B1r1oN AND REGULATION.

The Neps takes issue with Mr.. Scud-
days address before the Women's Chris
tian Temperance Union in Greenville
last week, and among other things, says:
In his speech last night Mr.. 81. G.
Ecudday assailed the personal rights
argument against prohibition with the
declaration that if the city could inter.
fere with citizens personal rights to
the extent of charging him 1855 year
for the privilege of selling liquor it could
forbid him to sell liquor at all. Mr..
Scudday was doubtless in all his glory
when he stated this proposition, for it
was loudly applauded, but in other
respects his resemblance to Solomon was
not startling just then.
Everybody comedies the right of the
government to regulate the sale of Ger.
tain articles, including spirituous and
malt liquors, arsenic, paragoric, opium,
hardware, flour, dry goods and law, some
Of which are poison while others are not.
The. man who sells bacon, calico, drugs
or farming tools, prints newspaper or
keeps open q lawyers Office is required to
pay license or close his DOORS. But
nobody contends that the government
has a right to say that any one of them
must close his doors and 60 out of busi-
ness because some or all of his wares are
harmful or dangerous or do mischief
when used unwisely. As we understand
the theory of taxation, high taxes and
licenses aie put on tobacco and liquor
because they are more profitable than
other goods and can therefore endure the
burden and are lu1uries that the consum
er purchases and pays his share of the
tax on voluntarily. /.
The Law has no right to forbid man
to sell arsenic, but it has right to re.
quire him to pay license to sell it and
to keep it in packages marked "Poison,"
bearing a skull and cross bones. The
law has no right to forbid man to take
arsenic, if he thinks it is good for his
health or complexion, SO long as he does
not break the public peace in doing it.
Mr.. scudday may not have resembled
Solomon when he made the statement
which the Ne,os criticises. We do not
know how Solomon looked, and therefore
we cannot controvert the opinion of our
contemporary as to his appearance; but
We are satisfied that if King Solomon
had been speaking in Mr.. scudday's
place he could notshave stated propo-.
sition of law under the Constitution and
Acts of South Carolina more accurately
than Mr.. scudday did, when he asserted
that if the city of Greeuville had the
right to impose a license tax of 1865 for
the sale of spirituous liquors, it also had
the right to- prohibit the sale entirely.
If our contemporary will read the
charter of Greonyille, and as far as we
know, of every incorporated city, town
or village in the State, except those in
which the sale of liquors is entirely pro.
hibited, he will see that the right to grant
OF refuse license to retail liquors is left
entirely to the city, town or village
authorities. Hence our contemporary
will recollect there have been in Green.
vile, as we'll as elsewhere in the State,
frequent contests in the election of City
Council between the wet and dry portions
of the community. Mr.. Scudday was.
therefore, right when he asserted the
proposition of which the Neaos complains.
It may be some food for further reflection
if we call attention to the fact that of all
the evils which are the subject of every
day commerce the sale of whiskey is the
only one which the State has solemnly
declared shall not be sold outside of in.
corporated cities, towns and villages,
and which it prohibits the sale of in
quite number of towns, aud gives to all
other cities, towns and villages the right
to prohibit if they see fit. 1t likewise
places more stringent regulation upon
its sale for medical purposes than it does
upon arsenic or even prussic acid, in that
it will not allow druggist to sell it
except upon the written prescription of
physician in actual attendance upon
patient, and requires that prescription to
be filed for inspection. 1t is, therefore,
not assuming two much to claim that the
State has already solemnly adjudged that
the sale of spirituous liquors is an evil,
and that prohibition is right in principle.
1t leaves the matter to the people, except
where the Legislature epacts positive
prohibition.