The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1899-02-15

sary law, and that be would have
voted against it had be been a mem
ter Of the general assembly, for be
was inherently opposed to forcing
the State into the liquor business
But every bill introduced this session
provides for the State to 60 into the
liquor business. Even the prohibit
ton bill copies The good features Of
the dispensary law, ard even it pro
vides for a State board CT control.
Mr.. Patterson, Of Barnwel!, said
that he was opposed to any bill which
was opposed to the dispensary law.
He thought it had never had a fair
trial After the recent primary he
was surprised at the number Of bills
against the ~di<pensary. He said
that the outcome of the enaction Of
any Of them would be a series of
troubles.
At the conclusion Of Mr.. Patter-
sons speech the House adjourned de
bate until Monday. Monday no ses-
sion Ct the general assembly was held
on account of the inclement weather.
In the Senate it was decided to
take up Mr.. Archel's bill first. As
amended by Mr.. May field, it only re-
fers the question of high license, To-
cal option or dispensary to the peo-
pie without prescribing the means Of
carrying out the election. The orig
inal bill simply provides a way for a
county Kidding itself Of the dispen-
sary.
The motion being made to strike
out the enacting words Ct the bill.
Mr.. Archer began by saying that, as
he had before said, the Senate and
the people of South Carolina have
had this question before them
for several months. His bill simply
seeks to amend the ~dispenssry law
in what he considered an important
particular. Under the present dis
pensary law the State board Of con.
troll has the authority to establish
dispensaries in every county in the
State except those which were pro-
hibited prior to 1898.
After a ~dispensary was established
in a county, no matter how many
citizens wanted it removed, there
was no means of doing so. It was
in the power of the board Of control
to maintain these dispensaries against
the will of the people, and be wanted
a method by which they could be
gotten rid of.
MIR. Barnwell: The dispen-
sary then would instead of being q
great State institution be only a legal
institution as it was in Athens, Ga,
from which it came to u.s.; or in case
a number of counties desired that
there should be a board of control
purchasing for them it would be
shorn of it's power and deprived OF
it's political significance. He was op-
posed to submitting the matter to
the people of the whole State as was
proposed in the substitute bill of the
Senator from Aiken, for it would be
obtaining no more information than
the primary vote had decided on The
last election, and would be binding
on no one, besides leading to agita-
ton where no results will be accom-
plished. He was opposed to sub.
mi'.ng the question as to dispensary
or prohibition alone to the counties,
because it cut off the people who
preferred the license system from
carrying out their wishes. In many
parts of the State the law might be
enforced, in others it could not be,
and therefore it was not a State
question, but a lower one.
Mr.. Mayield: The only question
which restraints US in the enforcement
Of the law. 1 helped to create, and
have champioued the cause Of the
dispensary when some who are now
loudest in its praise were "hiding
out"
The ~dispensary has grown strong.
and great and powerful, yet were it
an hundred fold more strong I would
lift NY arm 10 strike it when it needs
.- To- a , l,r,DcL horo oNd