Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1893-02-15
IT IS NOT PROHIBITION.
Chairman I'D. .Childs on the
Dispensary Law.
THE STATE SHOULD NOT SELL LIQUOR.
Prohibitionists are Advised to Accept
Nothing that is In the Nature
of a Compromise.

10 the Slalc IOilloltioh i1AeSuliNS
Committee: BY the action of your
committee at its meeting in December
last, was requested to have the draft
of the prohibition bill, which had been
adopted by the committee, brought be-
fore the legislature then in session, and
to give my personal attention to its
presentation to that body. That duty
endeavored to discharge to the best
of my ability, giving my almost con,
tinuous attendance on the sessions of
the house and senate and the commit
tees, until the matter was disposed of
! by the adoption of what is known as
the Evans dispensary. law.
Since then have purIDsely avoided
giving any public expression of opin-
ion on the subject; first, because any
attempt to forecast any results to flow
from the law would be to a large eX-
tent speculative, and, also, because |
feared that any adverse criticism
which might escape me might be
viewed in the light Of factious oppo-
sition to the experiment, and calcula-
ted to hinder the good which its advo-
Gates. some of them earnest and
conscientious prohibitionists, believed
would come out Of it, if it could be
fairly tried.
1t seems to me proper, however,
that l should express to you, as mem
bers of the committee, my convictions
on the subject, formed after the ex-
citcment attending the campaign and
the anxiety of watching and counsel
ing the movement during its progress
in the Legislature have passed, and l
have had the time and opportunity to
consider the situation.
In considering the action of the leg
islature on the subject of prohibition, 1t
should be borne in mind that the
question presented to the voters of the
State by the prohibitionists at the pri-
mary election was very distinct one,
in this respect at least, namcly-wheth-
cr the legal sanction of the sale of
liquors as beverage should be with
drawn and such sale prohibited by the
State.
This being the fact, the majority
vote cast at that time can be under
stood in no other sense than as the
expression of a demand that the traffic
in intoxicants as beverage should be
prohibited.
TO carry out this purpose your eNecu-
tive committee prepared bill which
was introduced in the house by Mr..
Roper, of Marlboro. After most de-
termined opposition by the liquor in
terest, and the quasi (politicaD prohi-
hitionists, the bill was reported favor
ably by the large special committee
composed of one member from each
county, with only six dissenting votes,
and after protracted debate of more
than week, in which the opposition
was allowed to exhaust their argu-
ments almost without interruption
from the friends of the measure, it
passed the house by an unprecedented
majority.
Up to this point it is clear that the
large majority of the representatives
believed that their constituents wanted
the kind of prohibition which was ex-
pressed in the Roper bill. This was
legislation which would prohibit, and
it was the fact which in my judgment
sealed its fate with the Legislature.
The combined elements of opposi-
ton to real prohibition ultimately
proved successful in the substitution of
the Evans bill in the senate. Its subse-
quent passage by the house was the re-
suit of conviction on the minds OF
many sincere and conscientious men,
bcrs, who had supported the Roper
bill as the proper measure, that II
would be impossible to secure the pas
sage of that bill against the determined
opposition of the senate, and that 1t
would therefore be better to accept the
dispensary law, which had so many
features in common with the Roper
bill, than to have no legislation on the
subject at the present session.
The fact, however, remains that the
people asked for prohibition OF the IL
quor traffic, and their representatives
have seen fit to give them, instead, a
law which takes the dispensing of in
toxicants as a beverage out of the
hands of the citizen, and places 1t d.
rectly and entirely under the control
of the State.
Such is the law which the prohibi-
tionists of the State are called on 10
consider in order to determine their
future attitude and action respect
ing it.
Are we, as prohibitionists, discharg-
ing ourselves from all responsibility
for a law which was clearly perver-
sion of our purpose as expressed IN the
bill which we submitted, patiently to
await the results Of the law IN the
hands of those who have taken the re-
sponsibility of foisting it upon an un-
willing people? Or shall we oppose
it us we would any measure when we
believed ti'aught with evil to society,
by making common cause with all
classes of our citizens who in any law
full way seek to render it imperative?
Or. shall we stand ready to aid III
extracting whatever of good may DC
found possible from its operation ?
In considering those questions let us
remember that while the act does not
only profess ''to regulate" it is claim
ed that Il positive good is secured by
it for which prohibitionists have been
long working, namely, the closing of
the saloon and its congcner, the club
room; with its barroom appendage
that under the provisions of this act
it is really in the power Of the majority
who voted for prohibition to say to
what extent this dispcnsary system
shall prevail ; and that the general eff
feet of the act will be Il considerable