The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1898-05-17
CHAIRMAN JONES
ON THE DECISION.
HEAD OF THE PROHIBITION MOVE.
MENr GIVES HIS VIEWS.
Tho Fight Will Not be afrscted-Says tho
Dispensary Law IL Not II Prohibition
,nsure ana Prohibition Is what
phey Arc After.
(Tho State, 18th. }

\h'S ''NtNNSt Aceh'
The following from the chairman
Of tho State Prohibition Executive
Committee, received by Tho State
yesterday, deals with most i'm
portant question and explains the
attitude of the prohibitionists Of the
State in tho light Of the recent deci-
sion Of tho State Supreme Court:
Newberry, S. G. May IL, 1903.
In rep'y to Lumber Of enquiries
from all sect ons of tho State, as to
tho effect tho decision of the su-
prcme court upon the campaign Of
tho ProhibiIionists against tho salo
of liquors, AS Il beverage, 1 would
say. that, 1 anticipated tho decision
ago, when | said "that it was tho
old fight of 1892 over again, except
while at that timo it was against the
suioon, undrr tho old barroom sys-
tenn, now it is against the dispensary,
with its beer privileges, hotel privi-
leges, the original package stores
and blind tigers, which have sprung
up with the dispensary system.' The
only effect Of tho decision, is to
close tho original package stores and
remove them from tho field as com.
peSitors of tho dlspensary, but it
gives individuals tho right to order
rs much as they please for personal
uso from outside tho State, without
interference Of tho law under which
the dispensury is operated.
The fact still remains, that in 1892
the people Of the State, without re-
gard to faction, presented an appeal
to tho Democratic party to be per-
mitted to vote upon the question of
prohibition with tho view of making
it State law. Permission was
given, and the party pledged itsolf,
if majority Of the voters at that
election, voted for prohibition, that
the party would pass tho prohibition
law. They failed to redeem that
pledge, and tho samo people came
again. to tho Democratic party, ask
ing them to give them n legislature
that will carry out their wishes, and
an administration to enforce it. The
moral principle is still the same.
The dispensary is whiskey measure,
not Il prohibition measure Tho prohi-
bitionists protest against being nude
in tho eyes of tho law partners in
the sale Of whiskey as n beverage,
and if the State insist upon it as q
revenue measure, that the State oil
South Carolina cannot pay it's run.
ming expenses without tho revenue
from the sale of liquor.
Let this question be fairly under.
stood by tho people and not pretend
that il is prohibition measure, whom
the State is into it for tho profits in
it and tho benefit Of tho politicians
who control it. L Isubmit, as q prohibi
bition measure, it is a failure, ant
that as Il business investment for tht
State is also failure and it ia des
tinod to wreck tho politicians who
arc trying to keep and get Office by
the influence Of tho machinery con
nocted with it and that no man car
touch it without bis character being
injured by it.
Tho question at last resolves itsol
down to this: is it right for me to en-
gage in or encourage tho manufac
ture or salo Of liquor as beverage
in any form, and no man who ha
the good of his party or State a
heart can do it. A. G. JONES