The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1896-03-12


was generally understood that the
Governor would go out Of oflico this
fall and they did not know who would
succeed him.
Mr.. Archer thought that the objoc,
tlon OF Mr.. Jordan could be removed
by elccting one or two members OF tho
board from Columbia. He did not sec
the uso of~having tho board scattered
all over the State and thought there
was enough Democracy, even Reform,
in Columbia for selection to be mad ..
He would be in favor of putting Con-
servativo on the board, as he was op-
Mr.. Mayfeld-I would favor having
on the board the strongest prohibit
tionists in the State.
Mr.. Jordan's motion to amend was
lost to q largo ma ajority.
Mr.. Finley offered an amendment
requiring the county dispensers to
make weekly settlements with the
county treasurer. Tho 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 treasuror's
Office. That officer should only have
to deal with the head OF the dispen-
sary system.
Mr.. Efrd argued in favor of settle
ments being made direct TO tho State
treasurer.
Mr.. Eiuley's motion was lost by q
vote Of l6 to 8.
Mr.. Finley offered an amendment
providing for something like local op-
tion. If tho majority Of qualified cleo
tors in any county voted against
tho dispensary, then liquor should
only be sold in said county for medi-
clnal mech anical and sacremental pur-
! poses. 1t was practically the same bill
which was killed the night before, ex-
| Cept that the latter had reference only
to cities and towns.
! Mr.. Elird did not deny that the ton
! dency OF the dispensary had been to
increase tho sale Of liquor and this
| bill was drawn for tho purpose of
| checking that tendency. II the Leg
islature elected five gentlement on the
board of control who would carry out
the original plans of tho dispensary
the curtailment Of such sales would
certainly follow. Ho was in life and
opinion prohibitionist, but he could
not obtain absolute prohibition they
could not check the sale of liquor in
ono day; they must go inch by inch
year to year the sales could become
less Objectionable to those opposed to
the sale of liquor.
Mr.. Finley said his amendment was
! plain and simple. Tho Senator from
| Lexington knew there we're some sec
| tiOns Of South Carolina where liquor
was sold, whore people were opposed
to tho sale of liquor as a beverage. The
sale OF liquor for profit was now the
object OF tho dispensary, and if it was
kept up, it would be stencil in the
nostrils Of the people.
| Mr.. Mayheld was a natural prohibi.
ZIONIST, hut prohibition was not prao-
tcable. Tho dispcnsary law had
been violated by dispensers; they had
sold liquor to drunkards and minors
but it was proposed to pus further
safeguards around the sales. Mr.
Mayiield made quito speech in favor
Of the dispensary.
Mr.. Archer thought it idle to talk
Of prohibition. The public sentiment
was not sufficiently in favor Of it tc
mako it successful. What was
the use of metropolitan police If pro,
hibition was possible? 1t was not
possible as long as the old barkeepers
had sympathisers in tho State, eympa-
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 were opposed to the
dispensary. If this amendment pass
ed, there would have to oe metropoli-
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.
/ E l,tc 4
of an unholy alliance which existed last
room men in an effort to defeat the
dispensary law.
| Mr.. Watson had never tasted whis.
key as q beverage, but he believed the
dispensary the solution. There would
be less drinking when the law was en-
forced. He had seen in O Columbia
dlspensary negroes standing three
deep in front of the counter and being
served and no questions asked. H(
wanted the law strictly enforced.
| Mr.. Pett!grew was surprised at the
opposition to this amendment by those
who acknowledge the abuses of the
law.
On MIR. Archer's motion to lay MIR
Finley's amendment on tho table, th'
vote was as follows:
| IcdS-AfCucI, bhIIOuj bflCc
Brown, Douglass, Efrd, Jordan, May
field. McCalla, Mcdaniel, Norris
O'Dell, Ragin, Sanders, Stribling
Walker, Watson, Williams-18.
Nays-Barnwell, Buist, Dennis, Der
ham, DuBosc. Finley, Fuller, Harri
son, Kirkland, Miller, Moses, Mower
Pettigrew, Sloan Stackhouse, Turner
Verdier--17.
So the local option feature was los
by one vote.
| Mr.. Barnwell moved to strike on
the proviso that all liquor be declared
deleterious unless examined and dc
clared pure by the chemist Of the
South Carolina College. 1t was ex
pected that such proviso woult
strengthen the constitutionality OF the
bill in his opinionion it would have
an exactly opposite effect. He was NJ
friend to tho dispensary, but as a Sen
ator he would not 500 tho State pu
into the position of doing something
which would make her laughed at.
Mr.. Efird said tho Attorney Genera
} had asked for the insertion OF those
words in the bill.
Mr.. Mayfield and Mr.. Archer spok
against Mr.. Barnwell's amendment.
| Tho omop1 monf uoo lnot