The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1899-02-23
PROHIBITION BILL KILLED.
LOCAL OPTION NOT IN FAVOR.

The House Has n Strong DispensnrY
Ieaning--The Opposition is Not
Welded Together.
The House considered the liquor
question by taking up the various bills
relating to prohibition, nigh license
and the dispepsary. McCullOugh's
prohibition bin and Mauldin's local
option bill became the centre OF attack
. from the dispensary advocates, and the
fight was fast and furious on all sides.
Mr.. DeBruhl moved to strike out the
enacting words OF Mr.. Mauldin's local
option bill.
this bill, was the first to,begin on the
defensive.' He said that the liquor
problem is vexed question. All over
the State, and especially in the last
election, it was and has been the DON'T
nant question. The State has not
passed upon this question which SO re.
lates to their internal affairs, to the
peace, the ord and sobriety Of the
people. There ia q law on the statute
book which Ia offensive to the man
hood OF the State. This bill only pro-
poses to let the people decide for
themselves what Is best for then. This
bill goes directly to the base Of the re.
publican form OF government. Where
can there be any objection to 1t. He
wanted the bill discussed free from
any feeling or political bias.
Mr.. Means said that the bill was, in
part, b good one. He would favor it If
the high license option were stricken
out, and II 1t were provided that there
,tion Of the county dispensary.
' Mr. 7 .TnhpSnn said that tharo
was so much diversity of opinion that
nothing will give perfect satisfaction.
The prohibitionists, local option aid
dispensary advocates each claim that
it's solution Is the best, The history of
prohibition Ia an ignOminious failure.
He visited Maine not long ago and
found that wbiskey was being sold
there as openly as in the South Caro-
lima Gispensaries. He would necessarily
have an enormous profit to make who
would run a high license establish
.ment, and that price would come out
OF the pockets of the people. Then
too there would BE- much violation of
the law. The dispensary law has en-
countered MOI Q legal distractions than
any law ever placed on the statute
books of South Carolina. But it has
run gauntlet OF the court Of last
resort and has been declared constitu-
tional.
Ii there is necessity for an Increased
appropriation for any cause in South
Carolina it ia education. The enor-
NOUS profits OF the dispensary are
devoted to that purpose. There are
those who say that they will not &C.
oept revenue money for education
That is ridiculous. For the United
States government Ia getting enormous
revenues from the same source. He
spoke Of the good moral effects &C.
complished by the dispensary. 1t has
stopped midnight gambols and gamb-
ling. Local option and high license
would mean /. return W open uerrooms
with all its horrors.
This bill is unnecessary. The peo-
pie are heartily sick of elections. II
they want an expression from the peo-
ple tl.oN have had it time after time.
From the rillman-Butler campaign it
has been discus. ed In overy campaign
and the dispensary has come out
victorious. But for the vaciilating
policy and extreme unpOpularity Of the
dispensary candidate for governor, he
would have been elected by 30, 600
majority.
Mr. @. e. Robinson had substitute
which he wanted read. The house has
and he offered his substitute not to be
thrown into the waste basket, but be-
cause he thought 1t the best solution
of the liquor problem. He said that
Mr.. johnson claimed that the views Of
the people had been expressed before.
He denied that, and said in refutation
that personality had d great deal to do
with the choice of candidates at the
cost of issues. The dispensary law was
enacted against the will OF the people.
Before 1892 his county, Pickens, had
prohibition, and was dry, except for a
few blockade dispensaries. In 1894 his
county was compelled, to, have a dis
pensarv. He was pledged to vote for
no chsnna in the dispensary law, but
he WAS not pledged against submitting
the matter to the people. He thought
there should be equal rights to all
counties, and that the people should be
allowed to 60 to the polls and express
their wishes. Reference has been
made to barrOoms. There can be no
barrooms under the provisions of the
constitution. Additional restrictions
osn be thrown around the high license
system. But high license will not OBJ
tain. The people are dtsgusted with
liuuor and would have either prohibi-
tiOn or dispensary.
MIR. Magill spoke against Mr.. Maui
din's bill. He desired to sound the
note OF warning to the advocates OF the
dispensary. Each and every bill on
the question is directed against the
dispensary law, as may be seen by
looking at the names OF the respective
authors, not one OF whom is friend OF
. the dispensary. He said that the
prohibition election in 1890 was not
q proper sounding of the sentiments OF
the. people. II such an election were
held in "a ""off year" there would be
seen to be qu to o change in the senti
> nents OF the people, appropriated from
tho stump.
This question was practically settled
at the last election when oil the voters
turned out, when all three OF those
, Ghostions were brought before them
The high license went to the wall or
the frat ballot. Even II the dispen
cary candidate WAS unpopular, he was
elected.
= The prohibition bill of Mr.. McCul