The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-15
DOWN ON STATE BAR ROOMS.
Chairman Childs, Of the Prohibition STATE
Committee, Gives His Advice to His Fol-
lowers Not to Sign ANY Petitions,
Whether it Makes Tillman
Mad or Not.
ESPECIAL to News and COURIER

Whether it Makes Tiilman
Mad or Not.
Especial to News and CouIier.]
COLUMBIA, Feb. THE Prohiol-
tionists have come out in a bold letter.
Chairman Childs strongly advises the
boycott of the dispensaries' and ad-
vises that petitions should not be
signed. He calls the revenue derived
from the dispensaries 'blood money"
"The Evans idea is of necessity op-
posed to prohibition" he says. The
paper is somewhat unexpected, and
will certainly be read with genuine
interest at this iuncture. It reads:
To the State Prohibition Executive
Committee: BY the action of your
committee at its meeting in December
last T was requested to have the draft
of the prohibition bill which had been
adopted by the committee brought be-
fore the Legislature then in session,
and to give my personal attention to
its proper presentation to that BODY
That duty I endeavored to discharge
to the best of my ability, giving my
almost continuous attendance on the
sessions of the House and Senate and
the committee until the matter
was disposed of by the adoption OF
what is known as the Evans dis
pensary law. Since then I have
purposely avoided giving any pub
lie expression of opinion on the
subject, first, because any attempt to
forecast the results to flow from the
law would be to large extent specu-
lative, and also because I feared that
any adverse criticism which might es-
cape me might be viewed in the light
of factious opposition to the expert
ment and calculated to hinder the good
which its advocates, some Of them earn
est and conscientious Prohibitionists,
believed would come out of it if it could
be fairly tried.
It seems to me proper, however, that
I should express to you, as members OF
the committee, my convictions on the
subject formed, after the excitement
attending the campaign, and the anx-
iety of watching and counselling the
movement during its progress in the
Legislature have passed, and l have
had time and opportunity to consider
the situation.
Tn considering the action of the Leg
islature on the subject of prohibition
it should be borne in mind that the
Question presented to the voters Of the
State by the Prohibitionists at the prl-
mary 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 a demand that the traffic in intox-
ican1s as beverage should be -prohlo-
tied. To carry out this purpose your
executive committee prepared bill
which was introduced in the House by
Mr.. Roper, of Marlboro. After most
determined opposition by the liquor
interests and the quasi political Prohl-
bitionists this bill was reported favora-
bly, by the large special committee
composed of one member from each
county, with only six dissenting votes,
and after protracted debate, in which
the opposition was allowed to exhaust
its arguments, almost without inter-
ruption from the friends of the meas
ure, it passed the House by an uEpre-
cedented majority.
Up to this point it is clear that the
large majority of the Representatives
believe that their constituents wanted
the kind of prohibition which was ex-
pressed in the Roper bill. This was
legislation which would prohibit, and
it was this fact which, In my Judg-
ment, sealed it's fate with the Legisla-
turs. The combined elements of oppo-
sitior to real prohibition ultimately
proved successful in the substitution OF
the Evans bill in the Senate. Its sub
sequent passage by the House was the
result of a conviction in the minds OF
many sincere and conscientious mem
bers who had supported the Roper bill
as the proper measure that it VIC Id be
impossible to secure the passage Of that
bill against the determined opposition
of the Senate and thahit would, there,
fore, be better to accept the dispensary
law, which had so many features in
common with the Roper bill, than to
have no legislation on the subject al
the present session.
IT'S A STATE BAR.
The fact, however, remains that the
people that the people asked for prohl'
bition of the liquor traffic, and thell
representatives have seen TT to give
them instead a 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 Prohibl'
tionists of the State are called on tc
consider in order to determine theil
future attitude and action respecting
it. Are we, as Prohibitionists, dis
charging ourselves from all RESPONSE
bility for a law which was clearly
perversion of our purpose as expressed
in the bill which we submitted, pa
tiently to await the results of the law