The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1899-02-23


dispensary system." 1t did not pro
vide for vote including the State dis
pensary system.
MIR. Patterson, OF Barnwell, said that
he was opposed to any bill which was
opposed to the dispensary law. He
thought it had never had fair trial
Alter the recent primary he was sur.
prised at the number of bills against
the dispensary. He said that the out,
come OF the enaction of any of them
would be a series of troubles.
In the House Of Representatives,
Mr.. Mccullough called up his prohibi:
tion bill. Mr.. DeBruhl moved to inde.
finitely postpone the bill, but with.
drew his motion to allow Mr.. Prince to
introduce an amendment. When the
amendment was read Mr.. Mccullough
accepted 1t.
Mr.. Simkins moved to adjourn the
debate. "This is no time to be talk
ing about prohibition" he said.
Mr.. Sturkey wanted the discussion
| postponed and the amendment printed.
Mr.. Patton said that be thought this
useless. The bill had been on the cal
endar ii long time. There was no
trouble to understand the amendment,
it was prohibition, pure aud simple.
He was not going to vote for the bill,
but he did want it disposed of.
Mr.. Stevenson agreed with him in
wanting it disposed Of
MIR. DeBruhl renewed the motion to
indefinitely postpone.
The vote was then taken, and the
House, by vote of S3 to %, agreed TO
Indefinitely postpone the bill, which
meant its death, OF course. The vote
was afterwards clinched as follows,
the nays favoring the bill
J. B. Black, w. d. Black, Blease,
Blythe, Bolts, Browning, Caughman,
Colcock, Cosgrove, Dean, DeBruhl,
Dendy, Bowling, Dukes, Eird, Epps,
II. II. Evans, N. G. Evans, Fairey,
Floyd, CAN'T, Graham, Hill, Holfmeyer,
Hollis, Hydrick, Jenkins, Fl. e. John
son, w. J. Johns on, Jones, Lockwood,
Lyles, Magill, Manning, Marion, La
ban Mauldin, w. L. Mauldin, McCraw,
McDill, Mellow, McLauchlin, Nc
Laurin, Mehrtens, Mlley, Mobley,
Moss, Moses, Nettles, Patton, Pyatt,
e. b. Ragsdale, j. w. Isagsdale,
Richards, Henry B. Richardson, @. &.
Robinson, Rogers, e. l.. Sanders,
Sawyer, Simkins, Sinkler, G. =. Smith,
Stevenson, Strom, Sturkie, Suber,
Threatt, Zimmerman, Warn, Verdier,
West, Weston, Wharton, Winkler, II.
II. Woodward, M. B. Woodward,
Wyche-S3.
Nays-Ashley, Davis, Henderson,
Jackson, Lotion, Mann, Mccoy, McCul-
Tough. Prince, George w. Richardson,
II. b. A. Robinson, G. p. Sanders, Sea-
brook, jeremiah Smith, Stackhouse
Whisonant, Williams, Wimberly
Wingo, Young.-20.
The local option bill introduced by
Mr.. II. b. A. Robinson, OF Anderson,
was next under consideration. Mr.
Robinson urged the passage of his bill,
which provided for counties voting
upon prohibition or dispensary, and
quito lengthy discussion ensued.
Mr.. Blease, Of New berry, said that
he was leader in the fight against the
Childs prohibition bill in 1892. The
prohibition people forced the dispen-
prob ibition leader OF the House, Mr.
Nettles, after a hard struggle for q
stringent prohibition law, accepted the
dispensary law rs substituted in the
Senate by ex-Gov. Evans. Had it not
been for the prohibitionists, there
would have been nu dispensary law
and now that they've got tho coon they
want TO turn him loose. There are
| good mer behind the prohibition law
! but there are aome who care only fo,
self
He asked what meant the admission
of the prohibition candidate for Gov.
ernor that the dispensary had done
more than anything elso to make the
liquor traffic Respectable. What means
that admission coming from man
who, on the stump, had fought the dis.
pensary We also see that defeated
| candidate striking the one who had de-
| feated him while his hands were tied
and he was also lying upon what was
supposed to be his death bed and was
unable to lift his hand or voice in
his own behalf, after having gone upon
the stump throughout the State, side
by side with him, pretending to have
the kindest feelings for him. Strik-
! ing him now is considered about as
consistent as the sudden reversal OF
his views upon the dispensary question
Then it is that we find newspaper in
this city, q newspaper which has al
ways consistently opposed the dispcn.
sarv, patting him on the back, praisine
his position and saying, Now, alto
gother for charge upon q common
foe" Who altogether Why, high
license and prohibition. Against what
common foe? The dispensary. "The
common foe is the reform party, and
to it we must stick" he said.
He then went on to state his posi-
ton. He had all along favored sub
hitting the question to the people
The Newberry convention last spring
passed resolution framed by him
asking that the question be submitted
to the people. He came to the State
convention and fought for the adoption
Of those resolutions, but though there
was none to oppose them tho conven
ton, by q large majority, voted against
them. In 1892 he supported resolu
ton Of the same tenor offered by Mr.
Perry, Of Greenvillo, resolutions which
were killed upon motion Of MI. Nettles
the prohibition leader, and this was
the same year that the dispensary wa
csta ablished. .
He continued, "They tell us tina
the last race for Governor was be
} tween disper sary and prohibition. TIL,