The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1893-07-04
Dispensary Act a Compromise,

Edttof Advertiser:
10th as / am to enter into the
discussion of this question in the
public prints, / feel constrained by
q sense of duty to do SO, as a hum.
BILE representative of the people,
who had something to do in shap-
ing the Evans bill I'm the State Son
ate; as a prohibitionist in principle;
rs a church member who fears God
rather than man; and as a Refor-
mer in both politics and morals.
Was the Evans ~dispensary act a
compromise? OF was it intended
to crush out the prohibition senti-
ment of the State as expressed at
the polls, at the last general cleo
ton, and to substitute therefor a
liquor dispensary as a State insti-
tuition, and an improved method of
whiskey traffic, affording more rev.
enue? Having had ABUNDANT OPP
portunity Of knowing, 1 give 1t as
my deliberate Judgment, that the
Evans bill could never have passed
the Senate without that amend
meat allowing a majority of the
freehold voters to control the
question of establishing the dis
pensary and of appointing a dis
penser. That amendment makes
1t .possible to prohibit the sale Of
liquor where now licensed, by the
local option afforded, after the
whislkey saloons are closed on the
LIST of July; to establish a dIspen-
sary or not as n majority of free
hold voters may elect. Senator
Stanyarne Wilson, who is always
vigilant and thoughtful, added a
valuable amendment at the end of
the bill, in another section. the eff
feet Of which was to preserve the
status of prohibition wherever it
now exists in this State by law. 1t
will DO eel therefore, that the act
is compromise and is, with its
iron-clad machinery for enforcing
prohibition in one county where
established, on the one hand, or
protecting the interests OF the dis
pensary in another county, where
that is preferred; on the other hand
it becomes the strongest local OPP
ton law ever adopted in South
Carolina. II is one, in my judy
ment, which if it is impartially en-
forced by the State Board of Con-
troll, in counties which elect 10 do
Without tie &ispensary, that will
knock "blind tigers so utterly
blind that they caunot hurt half as
bad as the dispensary tiger now so.
fondly petted and fostered by the
State Board of Control and to be
let loose on the people on the first
of July next.
l voted for the act for The pro-
hibition that was in it, thinking
that a half loaf of bread is better
than no loaf. We have a right to
the full benefits Of that act and I
trust the people of Laurens will
promptly assert that right by re-
jecting the dispensary in favor of
absolute prohibition in accord with
III vote at tho polls.
1t is idle and vain to say that
politics is at the bottom of the op-
position to tho dispensary. The
prohibition sentiment Of the State
entertained by people of all fac
lions represents the opposition 10
the dispensary. How was it here
in Laurens County? 2,215 votes
were cast into the prohibition box
-1,545 for prohibition and only
go against, making tho majority
for prohibition $40. In tho. State
a majority Of nearly 10000 votes
were cast in favor of prohibition
at the primary election, August
30th, 1892, and all this with no ref,
erence to politics, A leading pol
itician of the Reform faction said
recently chat u dispensary law
was the best prohibition bill ever
passed and every discerning man
knows it too" when hejs doing all
he can to drive prohibition out of
the State by over jealous advocacy
of the State dispehsary. He, a
protested prohibitionist, was greatly
shocked and said "he never ex-
pected to see the day when a coali-
ton would be formed in our State
between prohibitionists, church
members and the liquor sellers to
defeat q law to close the doors Of
barroOms." We reject the charge
as unwarranted and untrue. Pro-
h~ibitionists and church members
do not want "to defeat the law
that closed the doors of barrooms."
They want it enforced and if he is
a "discerning man" he knows it,
and knows too there is no coalition
either accidental or otherwise be-
tween these and liquor sellers to
defeat the closing Of Jarrooms.
They want to close them under the
dispensary act and by exercising
their rights under the same, to pro-
hibit State bar-rooms. Liquor sell
lers oppose alike the dispensary
option or the prohibition option
under the act. If a majority Of
freehold voters Of the city Of Lau.
rens, whether Reformers or Con-
servativcs, refuse to sign petitions
for a dispeDsary~and that givs ua
the alternative Of prohibition-is
that not what the people of the
city and country voted for and
wanted, and must we reject it be-
cause some may be suspected Of
political motives i'm so acting? But
they cry, elf you elect to hive pro-
hibition, instead Of q dispensary
under the terms Of this act, you
will be over-run with blind tigers
and lose the revenue too" These
people who manifest more flip
pancy than p%rofundity in the dis
cussion of this question, affect a
great horror for "blind tigers" and
withal moro love for revenue, than
the great moral interest Of the PEG.