The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1898-08-03


Yours truly,
4 PLUAIER BURGESS.
Tie above questions propounded
by citizen are answered as follows:
l. I have held the Office of Pro-
bate Judge about ten years; the last
two terms was elected without oppo-
sition, and the last term was elected
in spite OF the fact that I announced
publicly. If competent man
would run I would not be a candl-
date. No one offered to run; I filed
the pledge; many widows and or
phans and other persons transacting
business in that Office, will testify as to
their correct and courteous treat
ment therein.
2. I have always opposed the seed
cotton license law, believing It wrong
to create license on the peoples
products and thereby encourage
placing the privilege OF bartering
with the producers, in the hands OF a
few. But as long as the law is upon
the statute books I have always ia,
vored its strict enforcement, and not
discriminate against the law-respect-
ing citizen, as is the case when the
law is not properly enforced; II the
law cannot be repealed then a way
should be found for its enforcement.
3. 1 do not recollect how the vote
on the liquor Question stood in this
county, but a majority of the vote IN
the separate box" was polled for
prohibition in the State, and the
lower branch Of the Legislature cleo
ted that year passed prohibition
law, sent it to the Senate and one OF
the nominees OF the late Prohibition
convention, Hon. W. H. Zimmerman,
offered the dispensary bill as sub
stitute, which became the law.
1. I do not feel bound by the ex-
preston OF the people as long back as
1892, because there are many changes
of opinion IL that lapse OF time, but
if the people give an expression OF
their wishes now, I will then know
their wishes, and as their servant to
do their bidding I should feel honor
bound to respect their wishes; to do
otherwise would be carrying out my
own desires and disappearing the
majority who are the masters.
5. I wanted the vote on the liquor
question that I would know and be
instructed as to the will of the peo-
pie.
6. You are wrong in presuming
that I made a bid for Prohibition
votes; am candidate for the Sen
ate, not on my ability to holler loud
and long for OF against prohibition,
but upon what I regard my general
fitness for the position, aside from the
single, one issue. Z want the votes OF
every Democrat who believes that [
will represent the people and guard
we'll and efficiently their interests.
I. have never cast vote to per-
NIT the sale of liquor in my life, and
on more than one occasion success
fully fought for prohibition in this
town. I did so because believed
that my co-workers would keep up
the fight and see to it that the evil
complained Of would be kept out, but
what was everybody's business was
nobody's business and prohibition
was dismal failure. Desiring to
give the matter fair test, at another
election the fight was renewed and
again the white flag of prohibition
was successfully planted, but did we
have prohibition Or any step towards
it? No. Liquor, and the meanest
kind, was sold almost openly, day and
night, in store lots and at private
dwellings; drug stores sold it upon
certificates easily obtained, and the
stuff was prescribed by the quart,
gallon and more, according to the
purse of the invalid" and the guam
tity desired. The thing called prohi-
bition then, became stencil IN our
nostrils and nearly all Of our citizens
declined to further continue pursu-
ing a hollow mockery. Individually
l will "stick" to the dispensary until
convinced that it is not a more prac-
tical temperance measure thar would
be prohibitory law, with the United