The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-03-03
Enforce the Law.
rrrcm the Columbia Eegister.l


The Register" firmly believes in
ilocal self government and for the
sake OF that principle it opposed the
adoption of the Metropolitan police
bin when ii was being considered by
1.-The General Assembly. But that sac
red principle cannot be made the
basis for unlimited license for each
locality 10 DO Just exactly what is
pleasing to it, They utterly fail TO
co:nprchend what local self govern
mrnt means who would so debase
ana degrade it. The absurdity of
such q conception cannot easily be
demonstrated by pushing it to the
last analysis. ii local self govern
ment means that the State has no
right to enforce n law in 4 county
which is not liked by majority of
the people Of that county, what right
has the county to enforce q law in
one of its cities which ;s rot liked by
a majority Of its citizens. Or what
right has a city to enforce an ordi-
nance in one OF its wards if that or
dinGnce does not suit a majority OF
the people in that ward. or who has
a right TO enforce q law in a square
of a ward which is not satisfactory to
the people living in that square, or
who has right TO enforce a law IL
one house Of q square which the oc-
cupantS of that house do not think Is
a good law. or who has u right to
compel an individual citizen TO obey
law which lie thinks should not
have been passed. 1t is possible to
CARY the idea Of local self govern
ment to ridiculous extremes, and
that is what is being done in Charles
ton. where a deliberate attempt IS
being made to nullify a law of the
State of South Carolina. The Dis
pensary law is unpopular with GER
tain clements in that city. which
unfortunately control its politics.
They have gone far in their endeavor
10 nullify the statute, but unless
The Register" mist ,eS utterly the
character of the people of South
Carolina and OF / cir Representa-
tives, the Eispensary law shall be
enforced as rigid, ii Charleston as
any where else in the Ste e. 1t is I'M
possible to avoid the conclusion that
the Charles on grand jury has been
deliberately packed with enemies OF
the DiSpensary law Who are willing
to perjure themselves III order to pre-
vent convictions for violations of
that statute in Charleston. Last year
the Ju"y Commission Of Charleston
county was composed of RSfoEnerS
and Conservatives, aIiatt~a Number of
blind -tieget--f Keepers We're convicted
of violating the Dispersary law, but
a change was surreptitiously engln-
eered through the Legislature and
this year no Reformer has a hand IN
the selection of Charleston.s jurles.
Motives must be judged by results.
The Charleston grand jury on last
Friday and Saturday threw out for
tv-Siy indictments for violation Of the
DiSpensary law. Does anybody out
side of an insc re asylum believe for
the thousandth part Of a second that
in not one CT those cases was there
sufficient evidence presented to war
rant finding true bill? Remember,
the grand jury only hears evidence
as TO the violation Of the law, the
prisoners witness only testifying
after true bill has been found. No,
the Charleston grand jury did not
pass on the indictments according to
the evidence, but according to its
prejudice, which was against the law.
As long as Charleston shows this
spirit OF defiance and of determine
ton to spit upon and tramD!e under
foot 4 law OF the State, Metropo-
Titan police must be maintained IN
that city and steps shonld be taken
TO have Dispensary cases tried else
where, without having Charleston
grand iuries pass or them.