The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-05-02
Wednesday, May 2, 1894.
The Abbeville Press and Banner, which has
QUIT Unnamed Tillman in its devotion TO the

The Abbsville Press and Banner, which has
out-Tillmaned Tillman in its devotion TO the
dlspensary system, says; The license ne%s, sn
ior prohibition. and It is hardly probable that
the prohibitionists are COINS to take up the
spy business which has just been dropped by
ticular use in getting excited over the situa-
ton. AS soon as the Supreme Court Is reor-
ganized and recognizes the constitntionalltv
again There are two interesting points
tardy admission that the "constabulary,"
whose works were so endorsed by the Press
and Banner, were In the "7py business" q
business too bad for good prohibitfonists to
engage in. The second is the naive tribute to
the impartiality and backbone Of the Press
and Banners fellow-townsman, Justtce-elect
Eugene B. Gary.-The State.
Whether our tribute to the impartiality OF
Justice-elect Gary be naive or otherwise, we
still believe that he will hold that the dispen-
sary law is constitutional. and that with the
concurrence OF Justice Pope the dispensary
law will yet be declared Of force.
We have not nom him or any one elae
single word or intlmation as to what Justice
elect Gary thinks OF the matter. We have
more than once sought an Interview with him
on the subject, but he declined to talk at all
40 to the law.
But, because we think the law IL right, we
hold that Judge Gary will sustain 1t. We
make not the slightest claim TO being con.
stitutional or other lawyer. yet our common
sense tells ~ that the law Ia constitutional.
We believe, however, that men may con-
Gcientiously hold to the unconstitutionality
OF the law, but viewing the question from our
own standpoint no are fully persuaded that
there are better and stronger grounds for be-
lieYing that It is constitutional. See Popes
dissenting option which is conclusive to our
mind.
The talk about the State becoming mo-
nopoly and having no right to sell LIQUOR at
profit goes for naught since the State has
been receiving money for granting to individ-
uals right TO monopoly in the liquor traf.
fc.
The talk Of not allowing the State to realize
profit on its liquor doesn't square with the
plan Of high license.
The State Is not q corporation with inter
ests adverse to the people-it is the people.
It is q waste OF breath for anybody to talk
to NJ about "inalienable rights" when
tho law books are full OF evidence that there
is no such thing as the citizen having an sin
alienable right" to sell liquor. individuals
have gotten that right only from the States
which have time ont Of mind reserved to
themselves the power Il, grant license to those
citizens who would pay for 1t. while strictly
forbidding all others to deal in 1t. and using
their Courts to protect the licensed citizen In
exercising the right which had been reserved
from all others.
If 1t Is right for the State TO charge license
fees for retailing liquor and granting moDopo-
lies In the different localities. 1t is idle TO talk
to as about the sin OF the State dispensing its
own liquor at profit.
II the one is lawful the other is no less go.
II the one Is right, the other is not wrong.
We put on no puritsnical airs about being too
good to take the proft arising from the sale
Of fdIspenRary liquor, npr do ws make any high
sounding incantatioDs andsabout despising
the benefit which the State received from the
sale Of its liquor. But we believe the State
committed q mistake In selling its liquor too
cheap. By cheap liquor the drink habit is en-
couraged. On the other hand, the less liquor
a man gets for his quarter or half dollar, the
better 1t Is for him.
nbothOt A1loICCis IL Lu0 ptOplc VI
this State desire TO pay our taxes we shall in
terpose no objection.
The large per cent. OF the sales Of lieuor In
this county was to negroes or white men, who
desired the intoxication. II such people
want TO pay our taxes. while having little
fun on their own account, will anybody talk
70 rs about its being unconstitutionsl to al
low them TO do 30?
The editor OF the Press and Banner has been
prohibitionist and q teetollist all his lie,
until the dispensary law was put in force.
But the experience OF the last year has con-
WINGED us that the prohibitionists can never
enforce absolute prohibition. For evidence of
this, zee how Columbia. Darlington, Florence,
Sumter and Charleston have done, when It
was only attempted to curltail the business
not TO stop 1t entirely.
We believe the liquor elements of
these towns received more or less encour.
agement from the town authorities, the oppo-
nents Of Tillman, and the daily newspapers.
Under the circumstances the liquor men de-
fed the law. and Tillman found 1t hard to en-.
force its provisions In some places. In Abbe-
Vile we obeyed the law. and the blindest
hater OF Tillman and the most ardent Has
kellite could hardly fail to acknowledge that
good resulted to us from the enactment OF the
law.
Viewed from our own standpoint we can see
no valid objection TO the law, except that
which is based upon hatred OF Tillman, and
hatred Of bis methods Of enforcing it.
The law, we think, as lar as searching pri.
vate houses for liquor Is concerned should
be either repealed or not enforced.
Bot We do think II any citizen degrades the
sanctity OF his home TO the level OF q rum
hole. that 1t loses its "sanctity" and should be
searched, whenever proof OF its degradation
and disgrace Ia furnished.
The Whtskey Muddle.
P e III presanfs the rocont copfnoip M