The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-02-15
PROHIBITION MANIFESTO.
Tie Leader Issues an Important Pronun-
cIamento.

PRUHlBlElON MANlFESIV'
The Leader Issues an Important Pronun-
cIamento.
When the Evans Dispensary law was
passed the prediction was made that the
prohibitionists would not be satisfied
with it as the solution of the prohibi-
ton question, and such proves to be the
case.
Ever since the law was passed the pro-
hibitionists officially speaking-have re-
mained perfectly quiet, but now they
come to the front once more, and through
their State chairman they issue mani
festo to the people. 1t makes exceed
iugly interesting reading and is given in
full:
THE MANIFESTO.
To the State Prohibition Executive
Committee: By the action of our COM
mittee at its meeting in December last, |
was requested to have the draft of the
prohibition bill which had been adopted
by the committee brought before the
Legislature then in session, and to give
my personal attention to its proper pre-.
sentaticn to that body. That duty en-
deavored to discharge to the best of my
ability, giving my almost continuous
attendance on the sessions of the House
and Senate and the committees until the
matter was disposed of by the adoption
of what is known as the Evans Dispen-
sary law. Since then I have purposely
avoided giving any public expression of
opinion on the subject first, because any
attempt to forscsst thu results to flow
from the law would be to large extent
speculative, and also because l feared
that any adverse criticism which might
escape me might be viewed in the light
of factious opposition to the experiment,
and calculated to hinder the good which
it's advocates, some of them earnest and
conscientious probibitionists, believed
would come out of it, if it could be fairly
tried.
1t seems to me proper, however, that I
should express 10 you, as members of the
committee, my convictions On the sub
ject formed, after the excitement attend.
ing the campaign and the anxiety
watching and counseling the movement
during its progress in the Legislature
have passed, and ! have had time and
opportunity to consider the situation.
In considering the action of the Legis.
lature on the subject of prohibition, it
should be borne in mind that the ques.
ton presented to the voters of the State
by the prohibitionists at the primary
elections was very distinct one, in this
respect at least, namely, whether the
legal sanction of the sale of liquors as a
beverage should be Withdrawn and such
sale prohibited by the State.
This being the fact, the majority vote
cast at that time can be understood in no
other sense than as the expression of q
demand that the traffic in intoxicants as
beverage should be prohibited
To carry out this purpose your execu.
tive committee prepared a bill which was
introduced into the house by Mr.. Roper,
of Marlboro, After most determined
opposition by the liquor interests and
the qucs; political prchibitionist,, this
bill was reported favorably by the large
special al'committee, composed Of one mem.
Der of each County, With only six dissent.
iog votes, and after protracted debate
of more than week, In which the oppo'
sition 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
largs majority of the Representatives be.
lieved that their constituents wanted the
kind of prohibition which was expressed
in the Roper bill. This was legislation
which would prohibit, and it was this
fact which, in my judgment, sealed it's
fate with the Legislature. fhe combined
elements Of opposition to real prohibi
ton ultimately proved successful in the
substitution of the Evans bill in the
Senate. It's subsequent passage by the
House was the result of a conviction in
the minds Of many sincere and conscien.
tious members who had supported the
Roper bill as the proper measure that it
would be impossible to secure the passage
of that bill against the determined oppo.
sition of the Senate, and that 1t would,
therefore, be better to accept the Dispen'
sary law, which had 80 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 peo.
pie asked for prohibition of the liquor
traffic, and their representatives have
seen fit to give them instead law which
takes the dispensing of intoxicants as a
beverage out of the hands of the citizen
and places it directly and entirely under
the control OF the State.
Such is the law which the prohibition
lists of the State are called on to consider
ir order to determine their future atti-
tude and action respecting it.
Are ne, as prohibitionists, discharging
ourselves from all responsibility for Law
which was clearly a perversion of our
purpose as expressed in the bill which
we submitted, patiently, to await the re-
suits of the law in the hands of those
who have taken the responsibility Of
foistiDg it upon an unwilling people? Or
shall We oppose it as We would any meas
ure which we believe fraught with evil to
society by making common cause with
all classes of our citizens who in any
lawful way seek to render it imperative