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

s THE REASONS Fur fsfthCaAoA AOA>'
Senator Moore's card, announcing bis
position on the Prohibition Bill, which
appeared in the INTELL1GENcER last
week, was frank statement of hia oppo.
sition 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 straightforward way in which he
answers the questions propounded, we
are compelled to express our dissent
from the snficiency 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 it was read in the House on the
10Th, and ne should think that the mem
bers Of the House who favored the bill
would not have delayed looking to the
Senate for SO long time. But this is
outside of our knowledge. Mr. scudday
should explain Why there was so long a
delay if. Maj. Moore is correct.
The reasons assigned by the Judiciary
! Committee of the Senate for not acting
upon thi. bill are an insult to the people
of Anderson County, aud discreditabie to
that Committee, for there is probably
not 4 member of the Committee, from
/ the Chairman down, who had not intro
duced bills in the Senate which were
pending in the House at the same time.
Indeed, it is 8 notorious fact that the
Charleston delegation always at the very
beginning of the session introduce q
batch of bills in both Houses, aud print
them in both Houses too; and mars
times the bills thus pressed, are mere IN
corporation Acts of . quasi private, ma
ture. The economy of the Committee
I. on this bill became amazing. The ma
) ior;ty 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 ndollars, Was concerned. The fsct that
it was doubtful about getting the bill
through, instead of justifyipg the report
/ Of the Committee, was the very reason
the bill should have been introduced in
Che Senate to give it a chance to get
through. The action of the Committee
Was . nom .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 a 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 a 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 fayorite one since
1876 with those who oppose measure
that they cannot defeat upon it, 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. 1t was said
that the Democratic party would be 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
the whole OF the voters of the County
shall have the right to vote upon the
question, and if a majority says prohi-
bition then lot US have prohibition, ana II
q majority says no prohibition then we.
will not have prohibition. There will
be no Democrat or Republican about it.
It will be settled outside of politics or
politicians. The people themselves will
determine it, and it would be a cold
comfort that would be found in splitting
from the Democratic party because a
majority of the voters of Anderson Coun-
ty are allowed to regulate their internal
affairs.
In North Carolina the question was
voted on as State question. We think
this was unwise, but still it did not hurt
the Democratic party. Much less could
it hurt that party TO permit vote upon
the question in single County. 1t has
not hurt the Republican party in Maine
to leave the question to a vote of the neo-
ple of that State, nor the same party in