Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-05-13
TRAGEDY IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
No Law as to Liquor-Sel'ing, Consequently
"Free Rum /" in the Palmetto state.
Washington Post)


Verify the last state Of South Carolina
is worse than the first. Last year whiskey
and beer were plentiful. but the con-
sumer had to get his supplies from the
government. Now there IL none to be
had from any source. Touching this
curious condition of affairs. the New York
Times says:
1T does not seem to be very clear
whether South Carolina now has any law
on the subject of liquor selling. The dis
pcnsary act has been annulled, and the
Supreme Court has just granted an in
junction against the issuing of license
on the ground that there is no law au-
thorzng 1t. In that case there Is no
law making a license necessary, and UNI
less there is one unrepealed and In full
force forbidding the sale of liquor with
out a license. anybody can sell 1t as
freely as any other commodity, for in de-
Gliding on the dispensary act the Court
held that intoxicating liquor Is a legiti-
mate article of trade. Unless some pro-
hlbitory act of which we know nothing
has been revived In the course of these
judicial decisions, there must be free
rum in South Carolina as the result OF
Tillman's Efforts
And, really, that is the way Il seems
70 US. Presumably the dspensary law
repealed all other laws in that connection
but, If ii be unconstitutional and void.
1t falls to the ground and repeats no.
thing. Ii cannot, we should think. be a
valid law for some purposes and an in
valid law for others. 1t must be all
good or all bad; all effective or all in
effective. II IL be stricken from the
statute-book and consigned to the limbo
OF nonentity. then, II appears 10 US, the
status quo should be reinstated.
Really. the present situation is hard
upon our esteemed South Carolina con-
temporaries. Here. we have an entire
community condemned to intoerate. hard
ship. through confusion of counsel and
ambition. There has not been. as We un-
derstand IT, any question of prohibition
In South Carolina. The question was
simply, as to who should control the bust
ness and monopolize the proits-whethei
the liquor-dealers should go on selling
good. bad. and Indifferent rum. the
smooth, first-ciass article, and the fiery
rot-gut, according TO the taste of the in
dividual buyer, or whether the state
should corner the trade and deal exclu-
siyeIy In material OF guaranteed quality
and proof Upon the abstract issue OF
having something 10 drink, the State was
beautifully harmonious. High and low,
rich and poor. influential and obscure
naughty and humble. they met as brothers
upon the broad platform Of red liquor and
merry life From the aristocratic fizz-
water down to the lowly but lingering
pine-top, the people stood as one man fol-
alcohol. And now the Supreme Court
tells them that since they disagree as to
the medium through which they are to
auench their large American thirst, the
thirst shall 90 unquenched.
1--WE weep for you. the walrus said; We
deeply sympathize" And in this matter
we echo the sentiment OF that feeling
animal. 1t seems hard that the whole
body OF South Carolina citizens should
be exiled from wassan altogether. No
more the morning pick-me-up Of silver
fizx: no more the midday Remsen cooler
no more the ante-prandial absinthe, or the
gaudy cocktail; no more the rich red
wine OF Chambertin and Bordeaux: no
more the soothing night-cap Il. and s.
no more the cheap and artless lager the
foaming schooner, or the modest nip of
rye. Such are the tragedies Of techni-
cality!