The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-01-27
A GOOD DOCUMENT.
CONTINUED FRo3t PAGE ONE

dus tries which have made the North
rich. At the same time we shoa!d not
in our zeal 10 foster manufactures
commit the fatal blunder OF neglect
ing or of failing to protectcur sslicui'
tural interests, which lie at the bass
of all prosperity. Capita, It IS said,
is cowardly. at any rate i seeks q
s,lid basis for investment. We cusal
on this acccunt, 10 inspire IN the OUT
side world the confdeace that lsgltl'
mate investments made IN South Cal'
DINA shall not De disturbed 5y unjust
legislation and, at the same time, we
should protect and encourage lncrE'
tries already est blished. If We rigid
ly pursue this policy during the next
decade we shall be able to double the
material wealth OF the State, anc
thereby to reduce the rate OF taxation
by increasing our taxable property.
DIsPENSARY.
Tie most difficult and perpiexine
problem with which the people IN a..
civilized countries should contend Is
that of the LIQUOR traffic. All the ef,
forts OF the Legislators to cope with
the hydra headed monster OF alcohol
ism have been unsatisfactory and IN
effectual. Prohibition has been tried
repeatedly in different States, and
while it has failed to check drunken
ness, it has encouraged hypocrisy,
evasion or open violation OF the Law.
It's advocates are unquesticnabIy II,
spired by the loftiest of motives, but
human nature remains forever the
same, and while Legislators may en-
act laws for the punishment OF crime,
they can never force men to become
virtuous Or sober.
So vast a problem as that OF the
liquor traffic demands for It's solution
Incorporation and combined wisdom
of all the people. Local option can
not, therefore, settle 1t except tempo
rarily and to very limited extent
The open saloon is copstSs1rGnac
and disgrace to ci7dIzauon.
AS is WsT Known I was at first not
ss6Tocate Of the dispensary law: and
was sceptical as tots ever being s
guccess in any form.
7 cannot, Therefore, be considered
as unduly biased IN its favor, and I
have arrived at my present CONCLUSION
N regard to it somewhat against my
will. The opinion reached by me af-
ter through investigation ofits work
ing throughout the State, and after
having the views Of good many IN
telligent and good men, is that the law
is 8 great Improvement over the old
license system and that 1t deserves to
be fully tried IN It's present form be-
fore there is any radical change made.
The proof is overwhelming that there
Is less drunkenness now than former
", and that the consumption Of liquor
has been largely decreased. This is
acknowledged by every fair-minded
man, and that the masses of the peo-
pie are averse to returning to the lie.
ense system in any form is very evl-
dent to any man who has mingled
with them. Having stated my cpln-
ion SIS to the policy the State should
pursue feel it my duty to enter at
some length on the workings and mer-
its of the law, and point out the severe
tests to which it has been subjected.
Il is not saying too much to assert
that it has never had fair chance.
Enacted during a period of intense
political activity, when prejudice and
party spirit were running high, It was
opposed by many On political grounds
p0rely, without consideration of It's
purpose or merit, and every possible
obstruction thrown in its way. The
Federal Courts, by injuncticns, have
crippled its enforcement seriously.
After the Darlington trouble had been
guieted the decision Of the Supreme
Court declaringsthe the law uncenst1tu-
tional came to undo all the work that
had been done. While it demonstrated
the utter futility of prohibition it at
the same time initiated the sale OF
liquor without license in every neigh
borhood and many who then began
the nefarious traffic have never ceased
to follow it, and are still selling liquor
as much as they dare.
OF what use is it to argue that the
State should not sell liquor to its cltl-
zens of reap profit from the ''blood
money" as some term it, when they
sdyocate licensing its sale and thus
sharing in the profits made by the
private dealer2 One system is just as
immoral as the other, if there is IN
morality in either. But the monopoly
of the sale by the State enables it to
control in measure and minimize the
evil, and the profits, which are but Of
secondary consideration to the State,
are shared by all the people. On the
other hand the licensing OF It's sale to
private parties would create a monopo-
~ just as certainly as the existing one
"a private monopoly, which has
never been and never will be controll-
ed by law, and the profits which then
become the paramount object are
shared by tie State and the oarkeeper.
There is monopoly in either case,
and the State in one instance reaps all
the profits and seeks only to promote
the cause of temperance and reduce
the evil to a minimum. In the other
the profit goes largely to private in
dividuals and there is no thought OF
reducing the consumption OF liquor
and promoting sobriety, while expert
ence has shown beyond dispute that
private gain stimulates the sale IN
every way possible and encourages the
evil. There are no ''back stairs" or
sssi6e doors" TO the dispensarles, but
there never was bar room which did
not sell liquor on the sly on public oc-
casions when the law required 1t to
be closed. The dispensaryis open only
in the day time and when ordered to
be closed, as on circus days and during
Fair week in Columbia, they were
closed, and but few drunken men
could be found in the city,
though the crowd was immense.
The State can afford to lose the profit
on such occasions, but under no sys-
tenn of license has 1t ever been posi-
bic toshut the bars. Private greed IS
~ ~ Lo %bne co0.rolle6 and herein