The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1898-02-16
TIE Great Debate.
Free Liquor or The Dispensary
the Issue.

the Issue.
1t is with unfeigned pleasure that
it falls to our duty again this week
to commend the General Assembly
as q body and as individuals, for the
promptuess and close attention to
the work in hand which has charac
terized the Legislature during the
week. Each and every one dis
charged their duty as they saw it
with en- eye single to the good Of the
State of South Carolina and the ben
eft of the constituents they repre-
sent. With the exception OF the
votes against Messrs. Epton and
Calvo, We have no fault to find With
the work accomplished, but as the
fine hand of shrewd politicians could
be seen in these elections, it is but
reasonable to suppose that the mem
bers lost their heads. The most
important measure discussed SO far
this session was the Childs' prohibi-
ton bill last Wednesday in the
House.
The debate was opened by Mr..
Garris, who said that he felt that in
this discussion those of US who op-
pose this bill will have trouble to
make ourselves understood. I am
unwilling to have it said that I favor
liquor selling in South Carolina. But
when I give my assent to any meas
ure which proposes to prohibit the
sale Of liquor as beverage l must
give it to a bill which purport to be
more restrictive than the one before
US. This bill is not a prohibition
bill. In section l there are three
classes of liquor selling declared not
to be against the morals, safety and
society of the State.
First. Importation for personal
use. We cannot under the ruling OF
the courts prohibit the importation
for personal use. This furnishes to
the illicit liquor dealer the permis-
sion to food the State with liquor.
Second. Those liquors bought from
the authorized State agent. If one
class is wrong so is another, and the
moral of affairs will not be changed
under this law.
Third. Allliquor exam ned by State
chemists and found pure.
Quoting from section 4 of Mr..
Childs' bill he said what are we to
think of such extracts as ''for 1-2
to 5 gallons" Will a man under Or
dinary circumstances 60 to a drug
store and get S gallons for medicine?
Packages must not be opened on
premises." A healthy clause if it
refers to beverages. But if it is to
the be taken as medicine, where in
code of morals can you find reason
for not opening it any where. Again
il would seem that the author con-
templates the sale of whisky for other
than medicinal purposes for 'assis-
taut" dispensers are provided for.
One druggist can sell enough quinine
in packages for everybody in Colum-
bia. Why rot the same for whisky
in packages as medicine? y
From studying this bill it seems
like but an attempt to reform the dis
pensary law. How many men who
voted for prohibition, did not vote for
political purposes? How many liquor
| dealers voted for prohibition in order
that they might sell the stuff without
having to pay a license?
This bill contemplates State
Board of Control of five members,
also dispensers in each county: Il
there is to be no revenue where is
the good sense in adopting such q
| bill. If a man buys for medicinal
purposes he is as much entitled to ii
as the druggist. Then where is the
revenue. In my humble Judgment
We would have free whisky instead oi
prohibition. We should pass oul
laws, not from sentiment, but from
cool, calculating business. They
talk OF the danger to our sons iron
the continuance Of the dispensary.