The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-02-08
THE SALE OF LIQUOR.
Those Who Share the Profits are Re.
sponsible-ThOse Who Participate
4 Cannot Hold Up Clean Hands.
Editorial in Broad Axe,

We publish two strong letters this
week on the Dispensary Law. Rev
Henry M. Mood is, we may say. the
father OF Good Templary in our State
He organized, if not the first lodge
then very near it, and was our second
Grand Chief Templar, succeeding Bro
Kalstrom in 1873, and serving three
years. He is truly grand good tenn.
plar. The other letter is from the pen
of our esteemed brother Rev. S. M.
Richardson, of Timmonsville. Bro.
Richardson is an earnest, faithful, for
chile prohibitionist who has the "cour-
age of his convictions"
Bro. Moods letter is at variance with
the course adopted by the Grand
Lodge Executive Committee at its re-
cent session, and we with all gentle
ness submit brief argument TO sustain
the committee.
The Executive Committee say, "op-
pose the establishment of Dispensa-
ries, but should they be opened then
see that the law is enforced"
Suppose we succeed in preventing
the opening of dispensaries, by that we
annul no other provision of the law ;
in fact we leave in force fairly good
prohibitory lawfully as good, if not
better, than the Childish ettles-Roper
bill for which so many prohibitionists
clamored. Now, then. why not strike
out the dispensary Besides, the State
gives each town its choice and fixes
the responsibility for the dispen sary,
not upon the ignorant pauper vote,
but upon the freeholders who can read
and sign their own true names. What
good will the dispensary do? Are we
not as liable to have "blind tigers"
with as without the dispensary? Is
not the law just as strong to prevent
blind tigers" without the dispensary
as with it? Read Section "a and you
will see that there is room to have the
law enforced even should there be no
special constable appointed for that
purpose. Now, then, if q majority of
our freeholders can turn this liquor
law into prohibitory law, ought they
not do it?
Again, as a great moral question we
are forced to oppose the sale of liquor
as beverage either by the State or by
the individual. The principle in
volved is not changed. The great
er part of the profits instead of
inuring to the former seller must be
divided among the taxpayers of the
State. The added restrictions to the
sale are not such as to prevent its use
as a beverage, and therefore will not
prevent a certain amount of crime.
For those crimes, all who sanction the
sale and share the profit must be held
responsible. No man can participate
and hold up clean hands. Then,
whatever good might come from the
dispensary is, to say the least Of it,
questionable, and the old theory, "Do
evil that good may come" was long
ago exploded.
How could our beloved Bro. Mood
recommend man to dispense liquors
as beverage and keep the following
obligation:
"Solemnly and unreservedly prom
ise that you will never make, buy, sell,
use, furnish or cause to be furnished to
Others, as a beverage, any spiritHous IL
quors or ardent spirits, or any malt IL
quors. wine or cider?"
Read Section of the Act and you
will see that the law expects the dis
peDser to sell malt liquors by the glass
and to be drank in his shop. Can a
good Christian man accept the posi-
ton ? Would not a minister's useful
ness end the moment he sold his first
glass of beer?