The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1898-05-19
The DI5PEK5lRY DECISION.
Chairman Jones, Head ofProhibition
Movement, Gives His Views.
FIGHT WILL NOT Be AFFECTED,
Says the Dispensary Law is Not Pro-
hibition Measure and Prohibition is
What They Are After.

The following from the chairman Of
the State Prohibition executive com
mittee deals with q most important
question and explains the attitude Of
the Prohlbitionists of the State in the
light OF the recent decision of the State
Supreme Court:
NEwBEREY, S. c., May u, 1898
In reply TO a number OF inquiries from all
sections of the State as to the effect OF the
decision of the supreme court upon the cam
paicn ofthe ProhibitionistS against the sale
of liquors as a beverage, | would say, that.
! anticipated the decision IN the statement
l made several weeks ago when | said 'that
it was he old fight of 1892 over again, cN-
cept that AT that time IL was against the sa-
loon, under the old barroom system. now IT
is against the di-peDsary, with its beer prlVl-
legeS. hotel privileges. the original package
stores and blind tigers, which have sprung
up with the dispensary system. The ou!y
effect OF the decision is e clCS the Original
package stores aud remove them from the
field as CON mpetItorS of the dispensary but II
gives individuals the right to order us mucn
as they please for personal Use from outside
the State, without the interference OF the law
under which the dispensary is operated.
The fact still remains. that in 1892 the peo-
pie Of the State without regard TO faction,
presented al appeal to the Democratic party
to be permitted to vote upon the question OF
prohibition with the view Of making II a
State law Permission was given, and the
party pledged itself, if n majority Of the
voters voting at that election. voted for
prohibition, that the party would pass
the prohibition law. They failed to
redeem that pledge. and the same peo-
pie came again 70 the Democratic
party. asking them e. give them leGisia-
ture that vii. carry out the wishes. and an
administration 10 enforce il. The moral
principle is still the same. The dispensary
is a whiskey measure, not prohibition inea-
sure The prohibitionists protest against be-
Ing made in the eyes Of the law partners IN
the sale Of whiskey as "A beverage, and II the
State insists upon it asa revenue measure,
that the State Of South Carolina cannot pay
its running expenses without the reTenue
from the sale Of liquor.
Let this question be fairly understood 10y
the people and not pretend that It Is pro-
hibition measure. when the State Is into II
for the profits in it and the benefit OF the
politicians who control it. l submit, as
prohibition measure, it is failure. and that
as a business investment for the State is
also failure. and it is destined 10 wreck the
politicians who are trying 20 keep and get
Office by the influence Of the machinery con-
nected with It and tha. no man can touch 1t
without his character being injured by 1t.
The question at last resolves itself down
TO this: is il right for me to engage III or en-
courage the manufacture or sale OF liquor as
a beverage in an form, and no man who
has the good of his party or State at heart
can do il. A. Z JONES.