The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1899-02-15
Rirht t, Drink and to Sell Rum
Mr. Williams Considers the Two
Very Different.
D. fense of the Dispepsary - Mr.
Featherstone's Suggestion Would
Involve an Unnatural Alliance
Moral Side of the Picture.

The article of Mr.. Featherstone in
today's issue of The State, advising
q coalition Of prohibitionists and
high license advocates, resolves the
mind of the public into the query:
(which OF the three ways OF dealing
with the liquor evil, to wit: high
license, prohibition or dispensary,
will result in the most good, and the
least harm, to the most peopl."
Now, I have no desire to thrust
my views upon the public. but, being
a member Of the State board OF con-
troll, I have given this subject much
thought, and will discuss it in a
brief and impartial manner.
A man with spark of patriotism
should not permit any selfish motive,
political or otherwise, to warp his
Judgment, however little Influence
such Judgment may have, on mat
ter involving the morals, property
and happiness Of thousands OF men,
women and children.
Almost since civilization began
battle has waged between two schools
of thinkers on this question. The
one ,contending that it is wrong to
drink or sell liquor, and the other
contending that it is right; the one
advocating prohibition, the other the
license system. II the theory OF
prohibition is right, in so far as it
relates to the consumption OF wbiskey,
the principle upon which all repub-
lies are founded is wrong. If the
principle that the government has 20
right to interfere with the private
habits of the citizen, unless those
habits become so vicious as to do in
jury to his neighbor is right, how
can the opposite theory of prohibi,
ton be justified? II Mr.. Smith
elects to drink wine in moderation
with his meals, what right has Mr..
Jones to demand that the govern
ment forbid? Mr.. Jones will confess
there is no harm in the conduct Of
Mr.. Smith except example, that it
is "expedient" to violate the rights OF
Mr.. Smith; that others may not be
permitted to abuse theirs unmind-
full that he has abandoned principle
and adopted expediency. Prohibi-
tionists seem never to have paused to
consider the difference between the
right to drink and the right to sell
whiskey.
They seem unmindful that the one
is private and the other public
functor; that the right to drink is
question already settled in the pub
lie mind beyond controversy, and
that the right to sell is public func-
ton open to reasonable compromise.
What are the effects ef prohibi-
tion?
If it is settled that the right to
drink exists and will be maintained,
isn't it also settled that human
avarice will legally or otherwise fur
nish the supply Can anything
nearer approach truism than that
the public will is higher than law,
and that if the public wants liquor,
and its sale is prohibited, the seller
has every reasonable assurance
against punishment if detected
Will juries convict who are them
selves guilty of purchases from the
accused?
Will elective officers strive to en-
force law that was voted for with
the tacit understanding that it was
not to be enforced?
Then would the citizen be willing
to pay taxes to enforce law that he,
down in his heart, does not want en-
forced?
MIR. Featberstone has said that
prohibition can be as we'll enforced
as the laws against all other classes
of crime, but is this correct!
Does the law against murder or
arson tend to produce murder OF
arson in other more vicious form, or
to encourage perjury CT crimes OF
any otl er character? Can it be
denied that premature prohibition
has this effect?
Space folbids that L 60 further
into detail on this line. Now let US
examine the license system that MIR
Featherstone is willing to accept.
The first stepin the "bigh license
drama is always ''local option law
30 called Who is, or has been, abl'
to lay down a principle that vii
unerriDgly guide the legislature II
establishing boundary lines OF com
munities that can lay claim to tn
Inherent hight ef local self govern