The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1897-01-26

Iue poverty Cl inc SOuGn Is uu0 moi
alone to desolation of war, but to the
lack OF the arts and industries which
have made the North rich. At the
same time, we should not in our zeal to
foster manufactures, commit the fatal
blunder of neglecting or failing to pro-
| tee our agricultural interests, which
lie at the basis OF all our prosperity
| Capital, 1t is said, is cowardly. At any
rate 1t seeks a solid basis for invest
ment. We ought, on this account, to
inspire in the outside world the conf
dence that legitimate investments
made in South Carolina shall not be
disturbed BY unjust legislation, and, at
the same time, we should protect and
| encourage Industries already estab-
lished. If we rigidly pursue this pol
icy during the next decade, we shall
be able to double the material wealth
rate OF taxation by increasing our tax
able property.
DISPENSARY.
The most difficult and perplexing
problem with which the people in all
civilized countries should contend is
that OF the liquor traffic. All tho
efforts OF the Legislators to cope with
thchydraheaded monsterof alcoholism
ual. Prohibition has been tried re-
peatedly in different States, and,
while it has failed to check drunken
ness, it has encouraged hypocrisy,
evasion or open violation Of the law.
Its advocates are unques tionably in
spired by The loftiest Of motives, but
human nature remains forever the
same and, while Legislators may enact
laws for the punishmentof crime, they
can never force men to become virtu-
ou5 or sober.
So vast Il problem as that Of the H.
QnCr traffic demands for It's solution
the cooperation and combined wisdom
OF all the people. Local option cannot,
therefore, settle it, except temporarily
and 10 very limited extent. The open
saloon is q constant menace and u dis
grace to civilization.
AS is we'll known, [ was at first not
an advocate Of the dispensary law and
| was skeptical as t, its ever being a
success In any form. | can no! there
fore be considered as unduly biased in
its favor and | have arrived at nv
present conclusion in regard to it
somewhat against my will. The opin-
ion reached by me, after q thorough
investigation of lis work ing through
out the State, and after having the
views OF a good many intelligent and
good men, is that the law is great
improvement over the old license sys.
TEN and that it deserves to he fully
tried, in It's present form, before there
is any radical change made. The
proof is overwhelming that there is
less drunkenness now than formerly
and that the consumption of liquor has
been largely decreased. This Is ac-
knowledged by every fair-minded man,
and that the masses OF the people are
averse to returning to the license sys-
TEN in any form is very evident to any
man who has mingled with them.
Having stated my opinion as to the pol
icy tho State should pursue, feel it
my duty to enter at some length on
the workings and merits of the law,
and point out the severe tests to which
1T has beer subjected. 1t is not saying
too much to assert that it has never
had fair chance. Enacted during q
period Of intense political activity,
when prejudice and party spirit were
running high, it was opposed by many
on political grounds purely, without
consideration of its purpose or merit,
and every possible obstruction thrown
in its way. The Federal courts by in
functions have crippled its enforce
ment seriously. After the Darlington
trouble had been quieted the decision
OF tho Supreme Court declaring tho
law unconstitutional came to undo all
the work that had been done. While
it demonstrated the utter futility of
prohibition II at the same time initiat-
ed the sale of liquor without license in
every neighborhood and many who
then began the pefariols traffic 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 citi-
zens or reap 4 profit from tho blood
money" as some term it, when they
advocate licensing its sale and thus
sharing in tho profits made by the pri-
vate dealer? One system is just as
immoral as the other II there is i'm
morality in either. But the monopoly
of the sale by the State enables it to
control in measure and minimize the
evil, and Uhe profits which are but of
secondary consideration to the State
are shared by all the people. On the
other hand the licensing OF its sale to
private parties would create q monop-
oply just as certainly as the existing
onc-a private monopoly which has
never been and will never be controll-
ed by law, and the profits which then
become the paramount object are
shared by the State and the barkccper.
There is monopoly In either case and
the State in one instance reap3 all the
profits and seeks only to promote the
cause of temperance and reduce tho
evil to q minimum. In the other tho
profit goes largely to private individ-
uals and there is no thought of rcdu-
ing the consumption of liquor and
promoting sobriety while experience
has shown beyond dispute that private
gain stimulates the sale in every way
possible and encourages the evil.
There are no backstairs " or " side
doors" to IL dispensaries, but there
never was :. barroom which did not
sell liquor on the sly on public occa.
sions when the law required it to be
closed. The dispensary is open only
in tie daytime and when ordered to
be closed, as on circus days and during
the fair 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 profit on such occasions, but
undt + no system Of license has it ever
been possible to shut the bars Private
greed is not to be controlled and here
In lies the great merit Of the system
Then the closing OF the dispensaries
at night and the destruction OF treat
ing by forbidding the sealed packages
being opened on The premises. These
three features are the ones which
make the dispensary law popular in
spite OF shortages" in dispensers'
n =