The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-12-17

luauSuIateO tuo ,Etu Sult LAosouAous AZ
1.-THE State and was the first to adopt the
stock law, be allowed to move onward In
her upward progress and be given those
rights which the Intelligence and wisdom
of her citizens dictate can be exercised
by her without deeriment to the welfare
of our State. +.
The News and Courier, answering the
INTELL1GENcER on the prohibition ques-
ton, says:
The Anderson INTELLIGENCER is mis-.
taken. The Ne,cs and Courier has never
advocated prohibition, by law, that went
further than the present law on the
subject. There we are content to stay:
We stand now where we have always
stood !; and we are not prepared to admit
that prohibition cannot be made effective,
outside of cities and towns where liquor.
selling is licensed. There is no shadow
of justification for the remark OF the
INTELLIGENCER that the Neus and Cou.
rier is advising SO course to force this
question into the politics of the country /"
We have taken no such course, and
advise none. They who are likely to
bring the question into politics are
papers which are not content to take the
law as It is, and enforce it, but which
agitate ! agitats agitate to cram their
own extreme views down the throats OF
their neighbors. 2.a e. So :,
We have not the files Of the Neios and
Courier in 1880, aud are not able to give
the language of our contemporary which
produced the impression on our mind,
which We stated last week, when re said
"our contemporary did not seem to think
additional temperance legislation would
hurt the State in 1880, when it was 30
earnest an advocate of more stringent
liquor laws" The Nesos and Courier
pronounces this mistake, and says it
did not advocate prohibition by law.
We did not assert that the NeDs and
Courier advocated prohibition in 1880.
We merely stated that it earnestly adco-
Gated more stringent liquor laOs." Our
contemporary, in the foregoing article,
seems Indirectly to admit that 1t adyocat'
ed prohibition laws, as far as the present
regulations go; and If SO, it advocated
more stringent laws than existed in 1880,
which is all that ne stated. This state.
ment, is made from memery, as to the
general tenor of the Ne,rs and Curriers'
expressions on temperance laws at that
time, and We do not think our contempo-
rary will claim that our memory is far
wrong. We have not said that the Meus
and Courier advocated prohibition, but
that 1t advocated more stringent liquor
laws than existed in 1880. So much for
the News and Couricr's first point.
The Ne,us and Courier is not more for
tunate in its next issue with the INTEL
LIGENcER, when it says "there is no
shadow of justification for the remark Of
the INTEIL1eENcER that the, News and
Courier is advising course to force this
question into the politics ofthe country"
We have no idea that; the Ne,os and
Courier wants to force this issue into
politics, but we are equally certain, as
matter of opinion, that the result of the
course advised by the Me.us and Courier
will carry the question into the coming
canvass in several Counties of the State.
The advice of the Me,os and Courier has
been against submitting the question of
license or no license to the people by
Counties. The result of this will be to
force the peopleto yield to the politicians,
or to elect such men in the primaries as
will properly represent their wishes.
This is merely matter of opinion, but
a few months will show whether We are
right in the prediction that the question
of the right of the people to vote on the
prohibition question will enter into Our
primary elections or not. If the cleo.
tions had been ordered outside of politi.
cal elections, we do not believe the
matter would have gone into politics.
The Ncws and Cbur;er's advice has, how.
ever, been taken, land We will see what
the canvass brings forth. Of course the
News and Courier does not advise that
the matter be taken into politics, and
does not want it agitated, because as
long things are let alone 1t will have its
way. It says the papers which are not
content with the Law as it now stands
will take it into politics, to cram their
extreme views down the throats of their
neighbors. This is self.complacency
personi6ed. There is no proposition to
cram anything down anybody's throat on
the prohibition side of this question.
The examining is on the other side. We
simply want the people to settle this
question as they please. If they vote for
license it will satisfy US, though, Of
course, we would rather have them vote
for prohibition. The right of the people
to rule is the principle for which We con-
tend, while the Ns'Ds and Courier and
the politicians who agree with it are
attempting to cram the existing liquor
laws down the peoples throats, whether
they want them or not. This is no ex-
aggeration. 1t is the simple issue. We
believe the people have right to rule
this country, and either to repeal old
laws or make new ones as they think
best. If they want license they have
right to have it, aud if they want pro.
hibitios. they have likewise the;right to
have it.. In our case; we think about
two.thirds Of the white people of the