The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-04-19
DISPENsARY VERSUS PROHIBI.
TION. SS;
By LAYMAN.
Southern Christian Advocate.

Can q Christian man sell or recon-
mend man to sell whiskey under the
new whiskey law? is question con-
siderably discussed just at this time, and
am sorry to see that so many of the
members of the Methodist Church, Ste.
wards, and at least two of her ministers,
favor it. For my part cannot see the
difference in selling for the State or for
an individual. 1t is certainly putting
the cup to your neighbours lips. 1t is
true dispenser sounds more respectable
than bartender, but they both sell whis.
key as beverage, and the difference lies
in the elevation of the whiskey and not
the man who handles it. I know that
some argue that it is better to take it in
hand to prevent disreputable men from
controlling it. Would not this argu-
ment have been of as much force under
the old law, when the town councils in
some towns allowed but enc bar, for the
Chi.ich members to have taken advan'
tage of that and carried on the business
in decent mannerP 7 can't see the
difference, except in the name, and that
will only enable the drinking Church
member to go in at the front door and
buy his whiskey with leas compunction of
conscience.
Another argument advanced is that it
is step in the right direction. This is
an experiment and not q certainty. 1t is
an experiment which may do for politi'
clans, but not for Christians. If this Law
fails, prohibition will be charged with
the failure of 1t, and instead of advan-
cling the cause it will be retarded, and,
perhaps, put back indefinitely. One
thing is shown very clearly: this law
elevates whiskey. If elevation tends to
lessen an evil, it might be good law,
and all who want the evil suppressed
could work conscientiously for it; but
my opinion is that whiskey is one thing
that we can't treat in that way. Let me
suppose case A man goes to town,
carries his boy with him. The boy had
been taught by his mother las all boys
ought to be taught that the barroom is
low place where druDkards congregate.
As boys naturally fear druukards be will
shun the place, and not all of its attrac.
ton could induce him to 90 into it. His
father leaves him at store until ne slips
around to the back door to get his drink.
The boy watches and is convinced of the
fact of its meanness by his fathers &C
tions. On their way home his father,
haunted by the drunken faces and wick
edness be saw, resolves that he must quit
this practice, for he sees the evil of it.
When the boy gets home he tells his
mother what he saw. She finds it an
easy task to get her boy to promise never
to go into such place. But let US take
the new way. They come up to a nice
place. The boy reads the sign: DIS.
pENsARY. They go in together, as the
farmer argues to himself: No harm to
carry my boy in there. He will see no
drinking nor any drunken men,. 1t is
"Good morning, Brother Jones'" "Good
morning, Brother Smith, and this is your
boy 2" Pats the boy on the head, and
makes him feel at honey The boy looks
around. On every side he sees beauti.
fully labeled bottles. He is certain it is
not drug store so he reads the labels;
Mountain Dew, Old Crow, Pure Old
Rye. He asks his father for one of the
beautiful bottles; his father tells him
they are not for boys. He suspects they
contain whiskey, but he is glad to see
that there is place where he can 60
with his father to buy his whiskey with
ous seeing drunkards. Before they leave
his father orders one of the beautiful
packages put up for him. The boy
speaks for the bottle. Nothing of which
to be ashamed. On their way home the
father congratulstes himself and thinks
the new law a success. Says he always
knew there was no harm in whiskey. OF
course he samples the contents of the
bottle several. times on his way home,
and arrives there gentlemanly drunk.
The boy tells his mother where he had
been. In vain she tries to convince that
boy of its danger. He argues that Mr..
Jones keeps the place, and everybody
knows that Mr.. Jones is good man. His
father argues that "our pastor signed Mr..
Jones' petition" (even when the question
was dispensary or no whiskey,) "and l
am sure he sees no harm in it." So the
woman's arguments are all met, and she
is forced to give up in despair and see
her husband going down to decent
drunkard's grave, and her boy likely to
follow.
While the law might lessen the guam
tity drank by the lower classes (which is
extremely doubtful), I fear it will have
tendency to increase drinking in the
better families, and thus throw the temp
tation iu the way Of our best boys, as l
have known of boys, who we're ashamed
to go in barroom, to ask the druggist to
keep bottled whiskey 80 they might get it
without STOPPING 30 low.
sometimes think a law forbidding
barrooms to have back or side entrances,
and require them to display the danger
signal of skull and bones with the word
"poison" in red letters, might bave been
better for prohibition than the monstros.
ity in the shape of a law which we now
have.
Still another argument is that the
whiskey men oppose it, and that is suf-
6cient to prove that it is good. Suppose
the State had taken the drug business in
hand to run that. Don't you suppose the