The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1899-01-19

be judged by It's fruits rather than by
motives Of political prejudice or self
interest. II these fruits have not beer
hitherto altogether OF the kind OF
quality that it, friends still hope tt
see 1t boar, there is> yet sufficient prom
ise to ask that this tree, which has
been almost uprooted and blasted by
the blight Of judicial Interference
shall now be given opportunity to sh0a7
what it can bring forth under fostering
and friendly Influences. l beg to re-
mind yon that at the beginning Of my
term as Governor, I recommended and
urged this policy, and I have seen nc
reason to change my opinion. The
law has never had q chance hitherto
to show what it can do, but now, since
there 1s no longer any question rs to
legal limitations or powers, we are free
to address ourselves to perlecting and
improving the system. The large vote
received by the Prohibition candidate
for Governor in the second primary of
the late election cannot be considered
entirely an endorsement of prohibition,
for there is excellent reason to conclude
that the Prohibition candidate polled
the full prohibition vote in the first
primary, while in the second he pollcd
the vote OF the ma iority Of the antag
|
whatever cause that antagonism arose,
and, In addition, the strength of all the
'sore-heads" and disgruntled office
seekers and politicians of both factions.
The election in Charleston is O strik-
ing evidence of this, it will hardly be
disputed that, II the people of Charles
ton want prohibition, rs their votes
seem to show, it is because they feel
sure that under that system there will
! be practically no restraint on the sale
Of whiskey.
Turning now to the practical con-
struction Of the dispcnsary, [ do not
think whiskey should be sold in any
county whore g majority Of tho people
mend the submission Of the LIQUOR
question to the qualified electors OF
each county, that each county may
vote as 1t prefers. Any county, how
ever, that votes for prohibition should
be made to bear all expenses OF enforc-
lug the prohibition law; aud such
county should not receive any of the
profits from the dispensary. Under
the Constitution, the profits accruing
from the sale of liquor 20 to the sup
port OF our free schools. Now, the
county OF Marlboro, which mover had
q dispensary, and which is now under
the most rigid form of prohibition
with no possibility Of legal liquor traffic
within It's borders, receives its proper
tlonate share OF dispensary profits.
or course, these counties may have
liquor imported for personal use with
out restriction, but 1t cannot be sold in
them legally. believe that IL Is but
right and just for those counties which
have prohibition, or may hereafter
adopt it as the means of controlling
the liquor tratli ,, to be taxed TO enforce
such laws, nor should they receive any
part OF the profits arising from the sale
OF liquor In the counties, to add to
their school funds. II the county Off
GERS. magistrates and sheriffs, enforce
the law, well and good-there will be
no need for constablcs; but If they do
not, the governor should be given the
authority, upon petition setting forth
SUCH violation, to appoint constable 8,
and to require levy in such counties
sufficient for their maintenance.
Now let us consider the matters con-
corning the administration OF the law
other than those mentioned as dealing
with its violations. When the di,pen,
sary system was frat inaugurated, the
State board was composed OF the GOV
ernor, the comptroller general and the
attorney general, ex offlcio, and in
these "as vested the power to appoint
the State commissioner and the county
board Of control, and to exercise gen
eral supervision over the working the
dispensary in the whole State After
the retirement Of Gov. Tillmau, in the
middle OF Gov. Evans term, tho legisla-
ture changed this provision, and Gre
ated new State board OF control, con-
slstlng OF five members, to be elected
by itself. The governor was left without
Official connection with the dispensary,
except the right to appoint and control
the constables. This system has now
been in force three years, and, in nav
opinion, it has failed to accomplish the
purposes of its advocates. The idea
was to divorce the dispensary system
from politics and to put it under q
strictly business manag "ment. No such
result has followed. It is notorious
that the dispensary is as much or more
In politics than it ever was. AS gov
ernOr, L have had little or no authority
IN connection with the administration
OF the lag, and no power OF restraint
or direction over 1t; and yet l have
been held responsible by the people at
large, and by my enemies in particu-
lar, 10: the mistakes and shortcomings
| OF its management. Responsibilitv
without authority is most unpl easant
and unjust burden; and while [ do not
seek additional responsibilities in con-
nection with the dispensary, submit
that justice and fairness mako it neces-
sary either to relieve the governor ab-
| s0lutely or all connection with this in
stitu5ion, or else give him some poten-
tial voice and influence in its affairs.
| The legislature itself, last session,
by particularly unanimous resolu-
tion, deprecated and almost forbade
the granting OF beer and hotel priv
ilcges, but the State board of control
paid no attention to this expression OF
opinion from the law-making body, and
had to use the constabulary to sup
press the nuisanccs in form of open
barrooms, which resulted from the
granting OF these privileges This
brought me into antagonism with the
State board OF contrOl-an antagonism
which might have been avoided had
these gentlemen paid any heed to my
fr, ltn,l