The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1893-11-07
TAKE AWAY THE PROFITS.
A PLAN 10 POPULARIzE THE DIS
PENSARY.

~ H.E | -
Gen. Farley Argues Against the Profit
Feature-One of the Chief Obstruc-
tions To the Success OF the DIspen-
sary System.
Now that the dispensary law has
been In operation for some time, and
has been subjected to the criticisms OF
the pulpit, the press, the people and
the courts including both lawyers
and iudges-it would seem that we
ought to have arrived at something
like u definite opinion or conclusion,
m be able to discuss the question,
both intelligently and dispassionately,
with q view only to the good that can
be accomplished by it, and the per-
rnanent settlement of the liquor ques-
ton, and not for the sake of mere ar
gument Or controversy. Being an oc-
Casional contributor to the press, and
TO your paper, this Is the standpoint
from which / write, and as 1 have
bssn an advocate Of strict pro-
hibition, this ~dispensary law as it 10Y
stands, or any Of the forms of high or
low license, but still realize the OWLS
Of an ill-regulated liquor traffic, I hope
that / q treat the matter somewhat
impartially. OF course in discussing
II dispensary law as 1t now stands,
we must make allowance for the fact
that it was passed at the end and in
the confusion of a closing session, when
the Legislature seems to have recoiled
from tho passage Of an iron-clad pro-
hibitiOn law, and to have substituted,
as q compromise measure, the dispen-
sary law, without having time to con
slider it, in all it's bearings, or perfect
it in oil Of its details. These had neces-
sarily to be left for time and subsequent
legislation to settle, and therefore as the
day for the meeting Of the General AS
sembly is approaching | hope that this
article will not be considered inappro-
pirate, or ill-timed.
Keeping in mind the fact that a ma
jority of those voting on the question
in the last primary (who, however,
were not a majority of the whole voters,
white or black, demanded prohibition
of some character, still if called upon
to say what | believe to be the senti-
ment of the intelligent voters Of the
State on this question 1 should answer,
that while the public are convinced
from both observation and experience
that prohibition, with drug stores for
dispensaries, has proven q failure, still
it demands q better regulation of
tho liquor traffic, or prohibition of
some kind or character. l believe
also that the thinking public, although
it realizes that the dispensary law is
imperfect, has become convinced that
it Is decreasing the consumption OF
liquor and intemperance, and there
fore the law has come to stay, at least
until it has been fairly tried and
true we might as we'll mako up our
minds to obey the popular sentiment,
or tho will of the majority, and com
mence to carefully consider the provi.
sions of the law and it's proper amend
ment with q view to giving it q fair and
impartial trial, and If possible to make
it u final success.
A very large proportion Of our people
are interested in this question purely
from O moral standpoint, and entirely
free from what we call party or partisan
politics.
The most striking, important and
distinguishing feature about the law,
is that the State government in ODE.
dience to the demand for prohibition,
has taken the liquor traffic into its
own hands, and has undertaken to
regulate it's sale and use through its
own officers and appointees. 1 believe
it is generally conceded by it's oppo-
nents, and by the courts, that under
the law and former decisions thereon, it
has a right to do this as a prohibition,
or police measure, as the traffic is
acknowledged to be fraught with evil
and danger to the public health and
morals.
The main end only question now be-
ore the courts, the Legislature and
now stand is in compliance or har-
mony with the fundamental law-the
constitution of the land-and also
whether it complies with the popular
demand for prohibition of some char
acter.
We may we'll leave the legal ques-
ton with the courts, whore it is now
being tested, and come down to the
main question before the Legislature
and the people, which may be stated
as follows:
1st. Does the law comply with the
public demand for prohibition?
End. Should the State, in the eXer-
else of its right to regulate and con
troll the liquor traffic, either as u po-
lice or prohibition measure, make it q
source Of revenue or u ear Of taxa
ton on it's people?
The answer to the first question is
that while the law may not be strictly
prohibitive, except as to certain per-
sons, it is sufficiently so to satisfy the
present demands of the public, and
moreover can be easily amended SO as
to place additional restriction around
the sale and purchase of liquor.
The answer to the second question is
not so easy. The ideal and fundanien-
tai principle of taxation in this coun-
try is that "all taxation should be uni
form" This principle is violated in
every special tax or tariff, which has
eventually to be paid by consumers and
falls unequally upon the taxpayers.
1t has long been one Of the chief com
plants of the Democracy against Re-
publicans when they violated it for
protection sake, or even in q tariff for
revenue, 1t Is not uniform. In all such
taxes the poor are made to pay as much
as the rich man.. If the ~dispensary
should realize as great a profit as its
most ardent advocates contend, then
the consumers, who + mainly the
poor people, would to a certain extent
be paying the taxes Of the rich by the
Of taxes on their property.
This would be particularly true in this
because the Conservatives will
to any large extent p~atroniZe the
which will have to be
by the Reformers who re-
present more largely the poorer peo-
pie. Railroads, banks, factories and
other corporations with their large
drink nj liquor. and every such
of taxation, by profits. on
made out Of the masses, would
their taxes, as well as the taxes
of those who do not drink. Is there
not great danger that when they once
realize this by the success of the dis
pensary as a system of taxation, and