The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1898-07-27
Prohibition vs.. LIQUOR.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:

l have always made it rule 20
take no active part in politics, dis
cuss or practice the same, and more
especially through the columns Of
newspapers, but as this great liquor
question has been agitating tie
minds of the public for so long, and
so much has been said, both pro
and con, as TO dispensary, probibi'
ton and high license, I take the
liberty to give my views on this all
important question. The advocates
of the dispsnsary, and especially some
of our Representatives at the Legis-
lature, have been preaching the doc
trine that only the old-time saloon
keepers and a few broken down
preachers are the only ones who are
now advocating prohibition, and [, as
one who prefers prohibition to dis
pensary, say that such is not the
case. The suffrage Of the people at
the ballot box in 1892 settled that
question then, and the prohibition
element is stronger today than it
was in 1892
I first advocate high license. Sec
ond prohibition. Third dispensary.
I advocate high license because it is
the only way to stop the violation OF
the liquor traffic. Under this most
iofamous dispensary law the act is
being grossly and notoriously violated
every day, Sunday not excepted.
You can 60 into any town or at
most any county cross road and buy
all the liquor you want, and more
especially on Sundays. Uuder the
license system with q revenue this
great evil can be checked to certain
extent, but under the dispensary law
tits impossible for small towns to COL
lect tax sufficient to protect the
morals OF the town and country.
I have been close observer of the
dispensary law ever since it's enac-
ment and I find that morally it has
been a curse, and financially fail
ure.
From 1872 to 1889, when license
was granted in my town from two to
three bar rooms did business and the
town received an income that en-
abled the town authorities to employ
policemen for the protection OF the
morals of the people at large. Since
the dispensary law has been in oper-
alton the people have paid higher
taxes, the courts have been over taxed
with criminal business, which grew
out of the dispensary law, yet some
say it is just what we need. l am
sorry to say that since the dispensary
law has been in operation that MUIR
der and bloodshed have been perpe-
trated in this town more the last
FIVE years than when licensed bar
rooms were operated for nearly twenty
years. Dispensary law and free
liquor without police regulations is
the cause of men and their wives and
children being separated, men being
in prison, fathers and mothers being
in distress, yet it is a godly law.
We have as good men in this COM
munity as South Carolina ever pro-
duced, yet they are daily buying
liquor from parties who they know
are violating the dispensary law, so
my sentiment is, if we can't have
the law changed to high license let
US have prohibition. The law can
just as easily be enforced against the
whisky traffic if we have prohibition
as under the present law.
If the dispensary law has benefit
ed the tax payers Of South Carolina
I have never been able to see the
place. Our State is over one hun
dred thousand dollars behind and
according to the Auditors report of
our county we are minus of S2,SOOin
our assessment compared with last
year. So you see, with this blessed
law and its profits, we are
getting deeper in the mire, so let the
voters wake up in this old palmetto
State, go to the polls and vote for
men who will represent US on one OF
these two lines, first for high license,
second for prohibition, and wipe from
the statutes of South Carolina this
Infamous dispensary act.
w. NJ. Wilson.
Peak, S. c., July 1G, 1898.
Sick headache. billiOusneSs. consti