The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1900-07-28
SENATOR TILLMAN KNEW
1T TO BE FALSE"
CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE.
by means of it their own sdvant>
age rather than the restraint of

uldCulue, ChtSu UllDSSll COulun |
improve on it
But they din in our cars that
prohibition is impracticable. I'm -
practicable ! Let US havo little
common sense about this question.
1t is no more impracticable than
many other laws already on our
statute book, and which no sane
or civilized man would see re-
pealed. 1t is no more impractica-
bile than the law against murder.
| doubt if there would ne as many
violations Of u prohibition law or
as many violstors Of prOhibi
tion law in the county of Greens
VILE, ) &, IN year as there are
violators of the murder law. And
there is no sort of question that
it would be far better enforced
If all policemen were to 90 to
sleep the sleep of death-it would
be, then, far better enforced than
the law against carrying concealed
weapons is now.
Now, If we must not have n
prohibition law because some law.
less persons would violate it, by
the same logic we ought. to repeal
the laws against murder and
against pistol carrying because
they are violated almost every
day in the year, by anybody that
chooses to do 1t. Will the anti
prohibitionists advocate the re-
peal of these Iaws9 They dare
not, and eft that 10 the logic of
their position. If you oughtn't t
to put a law on the ststute book
because it cannot be ideally en-
forced, then you ought to take off
the statute book all laws that are
not likewise enforced. They adj
vocate the retention of the law
which has broken down IN its
boasted moral aims, which is
violated every day in the year by
anybody that sees fit to do it, and
which, in addition to that, IS
vicious in moral principle, but
they oppose prohibition forsooth
because somebody would violate
it, although they must admit that
it is correct in moral principle.
1t has been openly charged that
the preachers and barkeepers are
in an alliance led by Col Hoyt to
defeat the dlspensary That
charge is toe absurdIy false to re-
ceive moments credence from
any human being who has the
slightest lingering regard Cor
truth left in him. Senator Till
man, who made that charge, knew
It 10 he false when he uttered 1t.
The charge cannot be interpreted
as anything else hut mean
and contemplate effort to break
the force of the almost unanimous
advocacy of prohibition by the
preachers, and served its author
as good occasion also to throw
contempt upon class of men for
which he has in many other ways
expressed his contempt. 1t may
be true that some of the liquor
men are fighting the dispensary.
| am not the keeper of their con-
sciences, aud | am not in alliance
with them. But | will tell you
this much is clear: The State has
prohibited their selling liquor as
individuals on the ground that the
business is wrong and detrimental
to the public welfare, and then
the State turns around and goes
into the business itself, and there>
by declares that the business is
right, and conducive to the public
welfare. The State forbids them
to engage in that business and
then the State is educating them
and all its citizens in the idea that
liquor selling as beverage is JUS
titiable on economic and moral
grounds. The State, in its blum.
dering attempt to correct and re-
strain bad business, is teaching
its citizens that there are good and
sufficient reasons to engage in it.
1t is very certain that a man
would infer that when the State
forblds him to engage in a busi-
ness 1t is wrong and hurtful, and
then turns about and engages in
that business itself, that it is an
act of tyranny by the State, and