The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-02-15

S1A sn<sS esu e0t10AtAAAJ boo ssuAA1AS
ted that he had serious objections to It.
sHs practically admitted it's illegaiity by
saying that the Bill was not sent to the
House until the last night:of the session,
and he, therefore, could not make some
amendments that he thought necessary
shecause there was not time. Hence, a
5bill passed the House that the members
wore not allowed to- amend, contrary to
al3 parliamentary proceedings
Breazeale,s card wholly oorrobor-
1 ats our report IS the comparison above
made shows.
Heeays there is not a sentence In the
) ea3d report which Irecog gnize as express
Sing any Sling which I did say.''
S. Our report salt, he ndorsed that law
ganesally z. Does the gentleman deny
( that he said sof Let the audience answer.
aa saSs, There were some amend
iianss + would have offered, p ETC., to the
\ 0ur report said, He admitted that he
Z had serious objections K, it. y Why did
$ 5 he lesire to offer .tsome amendments il
She did not have serious objections" to
ths Bill &
= sHe says, did not admit the Illegally
s6f the Act I,
uar report said, "He practically adj
8 Smitted its ilegality . etc.
Rut the gent tleman seemingly had for
u gotten that he had said, aI did not admit
the illsgality OF the Act = practically" !"
enr report snidl when he wrote, q few
S lines further shat the Roper bill which
s. s. passed the House was amended by the
sistt6 ststtstion [italics onrs1 Of what is com
Isenly called the Evans Dispensary BILL"
and that this substitute, in no wise SINH
+ Lar To- The Roper bill, but entirely differ.
ant and 6 new bin, "was returned to the
g 2House 80 amended on the last night Of
the session. and there was nothing for the
nenbers OF the House to do but to
accept the amendment or lot the law re.
s main as itSis today
Does the gentleman admit that such
procsdnre is in accordance with parlia-
insntary usage? Can abill be amended
5y Institution !? Was tho ubstitute-the
new bill giYen'a reading in the House
ons three separate days. as required by
z JaWf Does not the Evans Dispensary
law bear the incongruous title Of "An
Adt TO prohibit the manufacture and sale
6finlp xIcating liquors. or words to that
effect tths title Of the Roper bill, } whereas
IS the ACT itself provides for the sale Of
siiqusrs? Does the gentleman see no OBJ
sjection TO that anomaly
The gentleman should have learned
; long ago that confusi-n worse confound-
I ed follows the advocate of that obnoxious
nneasure that forces every citizen of q
S great State into partnership in the liquor
traffic.
The gentleman attempted to convict us
Of Misrepresentation of and injustice ic
him through other columns than these.
Had he requested 1t we would willingly
have given him space for his card. We
stndiously endeavor to preventa misrep.
presentation Of any man or measure occur
ring In these columns, andif by chance
.sAuch should happen our. columns are
always at the disposal of him who wishes
Ito correct the error. We believe dis,
cerning public will agree with us in say.
ing that our report did not do Mr.. Brea'
Ssale the injustice he alleges.
Hereafter when we want evidence te
4 sustain onr position we hope Mr.. Brea'
8 zeale viii come forward with "card o.
6 scorrection."
We dismiss the subject by repeating
B the caption hereof: yox, ct praeteres
IL y9ff,it