The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1896-03-10
could not check the sale of liquor in

could not check the sale of liquor Il
zone day they must go inch by inch
Let this bill go into effect and from
year to year the sales could becom
less Objectionable to those opposed t.
the sale of liquor.
Mr.. Finley said his amendment wa
plain and simple. The Senator from
Lexington knew there were some sec
was sold, where people were opposed
to tho sale of liquor as beverage. The
sale OF liquor for profit was now the
object of the dispensary, and II 1T wa
kept up, 1t would be o stencil in the
nostrils of the people.
Mr.. MayfieId was natural prohibi
Zionist, but prohibition was not prac-
ticable. The dispensary law had
been violated by dispensers they had
sold liquor to drunkards and minors
but it was proposed to put further
safeguards around the sales. Mr.,
Maytield made quite a speech in favor
OF the dispensary.
OF prohibition. The public sentiment
was not sufficiently In favor OF it to
make it successful. What was
the use Of metropolitan police II pro-
hibition was possible 1t was not
possible as long as the old barkeepers
had sympathisers in the State, sympa-
thisers among the judges. He did not
think there was o town In South Carroll
ma which should not be under the met
ropolitan police, and he thought it an
injustice to single out Charleston to
put that system in force. The police
OF Spartanburg wore opposed to the
dispensary. II this amendment pass
cd hou 20
tan police in every town to keep down
blind tigers, and he was opposed to
some people having to pay to try and
keep other people who wanted to drink
blind tiger whiskey from going to hell.
Mr.. Archer spoke of his knowledge
Of an unholy alliance which existed last
year between preachers and old bar
room men in an effort to defeat the
dispensary law.
Mr.. Watson had never tasted whis-
key as a beverage, but he believed the
dispensary the solution. There would
be less drinking when the law was en-.
forced. He had seen in a Columbia
negroes standing three
deep in front Of the counter and being
served and no questions asked. He
wanted the law strictly enforced.
Mr.. Pettigrew was surprised at the
to this amendment by those
who acknowledge the abuses of the
law.
On Mr.. Archer's motion to lay Mr..
Finley's amendment ON the table, the
vote was as follows:
Yeas-Archer, Barton, Brice,
Brown, Douglass, Efird, Jordan, May
field, McCalla, Mcdaniel, Norris,
O'Dell, Ragin, Sanders, Stribling,
Walker, Watson, Williams-1S.
Nays-Barnwell, Buist, Dennis, Der
ham. DuBoss. Finley, Fuller, Harri-
Pettigrew, Sloan Stackhouse, Turner,
So the local option feature was lost
by one vote.
Mr.. Barnwell moved to strike out
the proviso that all liquor be declared
deleterious unless examined and de-
clared pure by the chemist of the
South Carolina College. 1t was ex-
pected that such proviso would
strengthen the constitutionality of the
bill in his opinionion it would have
an exactly opposite effect. He was no
friend to the dispensary, but as Son
ator he would not SEQ the State put
into the position of doing something
which would make her laughed at.
Mr.. Efird said the Attorney General
words in the bill.
Mr.. Mayfield and Mr.. Archer spoke
against Mr.. Barnwell's amendment.
The amendment was lost.
Mr.. Barnwell offered an amendment
requiring the chief constables to give
bond in $4,000 each, and the consta-
bles bond in $500 for the faithful per-
formance of duties and in case Of
seizure without probable cause, said
bonds to be liable for damages to per-
sons or property. Mr.. Barnwell re-
cited the early history of the enforce
mont of the dispensary law, and the
harsh treatment accorded those who
to test the constitutionality Of the law
it. The worst feature of the
law was permitting constables- un-
without properly, irresponsi-
ble-to seize property without war
rant. What remedy has a citizen,
TO shoot them down? If you
prosecute him in criminal court,
what is the result? He has his par
don in his pocket or gets it immedl-
ately after conviction.
Mr.. Archer moved to lay Mr.. Barn
WELLS motion yn the table.
Mr.. Barnwell called for the ayes and
nays. The attendance was very slim,
only % Senators being present, and
Mr.. Barnwell's amendment was lost by
q vote OF IT to S, as follow:
Yeas-Archer, Brice, Douglass, Du-
Bose, Efrd, Fuller, Jordan, Mayfield,
McCalla, Norris, Pettigrew, Ragin,
Sanders, Stackhouse, Stribling, Wat
son, Williams--17.
Nays-Barnwell, Dennis, Moses,
Turner, Verdier-5.
The bill then passed its third read
ing, after being under consideration
for three hours.
FREE TUITION IN COLLEGES.