The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-03-10
AMENDING THE D|SPENSARY LAW.

Changing tho State Board Of Contro-The
Local Option Feature Was Lost by Ono
Vote.
The morning session of the Senate
was mainly devoted to the considera-
tion of Mr.. E6rd's substitute for the
House bill providing for the election,
duties and compensation Of the COM
missioner Of the dispensary and of a
State board Of control and to further
regulate the sale OF liquors. There
were great many committee amend
ments adopted, as we'll as a number
offered by Senators on the floor.
Mr.. Jordan opposed the committee
amendment to the dispensary bill pro-
viding for State board of control of
five mon, not State officers. He
power here in Columbia. 1t was un-
businesslike to have board of control
scattered over the State. He favored
having the Governor on that board.
Mr.. Efird said it was preferred that
the board should meet here once q
month and receive estimates from the
liquor'commissioners as to the'quantity
of liquors neeeed for the month and
make their orders accordingly. The
State officials had not the time to look
after outside business. The Governor
had countersigned warrants for thous-
ands and thousands OF dollars when he
did not know what they were for ex-
cept on the statement OF some individ-
ual. The bookkeeper of the board
could act as the confidential agent Of
the board between monthly meetings
and make small purchases.
Mr.. Jordan again spoke in favor OF @
majority of the board being State OFF,
GERS. He was not particular about the
Governor being at the head of the
State dispensary, but State officer
should be there.
Mr. May6eld was opposed to the Gov
ernor of the State being a clerk to
purchase liquor. He thought the Gov
ernor should sit in his Office and see
that the laws were executed. Besides,
they did not know that future Cover
nors would favor the dispensary. 1t
was &c morally understood that the
Governor would 60 out of Office this
fall and they did not know who would
| succeed him.
Mr.. Archer thought that the objec-
tlon OF Mr.. Jordan could be removed
| by electiug one or two members of the
board from Columbia. He did not see
the use of having the board scattered
| all over the State and thought there
was enough Democracy, even Reform,
In Columbia for selection to be made.
| He would be In favor of putting a Con
servative on the board, as he was op.
posed to the expansion of the business
Mr.. Mayfeld-I would favor having
on the board the strongest prohlbi.
tionists In the State.
| Mr.. Jordan's motion to amend was
lost TO large majority.
Mr.. Finley offered an amendment
requiring the county dispensers Il
L nIrA I'LL. al L
county treasurer. The bill provided
that they should make such settle
ments direct with the State treasurer
Mr.. Finley held that this was requir
ing too much OF the State treasurer
office. That officer should only have
to deal with the head of the dispen
sary system.
Mr.. EHrd argued in favor OF settle
ments being made direct to the Stat,
treasurer.
Mr.. Finley's motion was lost by
vote of 16 too.
Mr.. Finley offered an amendmen
tion. II the majority OF qualified cleo
tors in any county voted agaihs
the dispensary, then liquor shoul
only be sold In said county for medi
cinal mechanical and sacremental puI
poses. 1t was practically the same bill
which was killed the night before, ez
, cept that the latter had reference onl
to cities and towns.
: Mr.. Efrd did not deny that the ter
, dency OF the dispensary had been I
/ increase the sale OF liquor and thi
: bill was drawn for the purpose {
checking that tendency. III the Les
islature elected five 9entlement ont
D ls1hrd of control who epuld carry d,
ltlfe original plans b the dispensar,
5he curtailment OF such sales wonl