The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-02-28
Prohibition VS.. Dispensary.

Our people had the opportunity of hearing
this ubject handled by reverend gentleman
who has paid considerable attention to it.
We take the following report from the Sumter
correspondence of the Neacs and Courier.
The Rev. E. O. Watson, Grand Chief
Templar of the Independent Order of Good
Templars of the State of South Carolina,
lectured in the Baptist Church, this city,
Thursday night to large and intelligent
audience, The speaker was introduced by
DR.. C. C. Brown in few pleasing remarks.
Mr.. Watson first paid his respects to Sum-
ter Lodge of Good Templars, by whose invita-
ton be was before the people of Sumter. He
spoke of the steady and conscientious work OF
the members of the lodge, and complimented
them on the results accomplished and the in
auence now being exerted by their example
He said he would speak on one of the prln'
ciples of Good Temp!ars and Prohibitionists-
-"Prohibition for the State''-and in speaking
of this he would necessarily have so touch
upon the dispensary law, and in doing so ne
would endeavor to show that there was 8
great deal of unreasonable and senseless
support and opposition to the law.
''When the dispensary law was passed the
Prohibitionists were exultant aud the whiskey
dealers were defeated, but, alas the thing
appeared to be double-back-action some
thug, and before very many days a great
many of the Probibitionists had discovered
that they were also defeated that they had
been tricked. For prohibition they had
voted, and they had only secured the Same
old devil dressed no in more begulling and
respectable suit of clothes: that temperance
men and Prohibitionists were opposed to the
sale of liuuor as beverage, no matter
whether by State or individuals; that the
principles for which they had been fighting
had not been secured, but the stuff was still
being dealt out to the young and old across
counter: It msttered little whether It was
bar room or dispensary counter
He also said that There is good deal oi
opposition aod support to this law from
purely political reasons, but tba. temperance
people were not in this class, for they were
endeavoring to have prohibition, and the
dispensary law was not nor never could be,
termed prohibitory measure, and, therefore,
they were opposed to it on that ground"
He did not think that the trainers of the
law ever intended that it should be a pro-
hioitory law, but that it was framed for one
purpose, and that to bring revenue into the
the State treasury. He believed that the
State had a right to pass prohioitory law,
and possessed the power to enforce it, but tha,
the dispensary law could no; be considered
such.
That tue search and fight against blind
tigers were made more to benefit the dispen-
sary and increase its business tnan to uphold
the law.
He did not consider that the law destroyed
or took the right of good and peaceable
citizens, but that any man could still claim
his "home as his castle, for no where in the
Act could be find where any person was
vested with authority to invade home with.
out proper legal proceedings.
He concluded BY saying that all good men,
whether temperance men or not, should 6gh,
the dispensary the same as they did the old
bar room, for the principles involved were the
same.