The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1900-04-25
DTspENsAR7 VS.. PROHIBITION ,
Col. 4. Howard Patterson Of Barn,
well. Contrasts the TWO.

point of Prohibitionist, an article Of
| mine upon the Dispensary, which first
| appeared in The News and Courier, and
then in your issue Of the 2Sth of Decem-
Der.
AS will be seen from reference to
! my said article, its purpose was not SO
much to expose the weak points Of
Prohibition, as to show the fallacy Of
the argument then being used that the
| dispensary law should be abolished on &C.
count of the recent scandals in the State
| Board Of Control, and to present to the
| public some strong reasons why the law
should not be repealed by the (then) ap-
preaching session the Legislature and
the license system substituted in its
| place. The only allusion to Prohibition
| that said article contained was the fol-
lowing: while Prohibition may be de-
sirable, and l for one would advocate
it if deemed it practicable, yet ex-
perience has taught US that it cannot
| be enforced and that it virtually means
free liquor.
The above paragraph contains, in a
| nut shell, my views on Prohibition,
! but as my position in regard to the Dis.
pensary has been attacked by one of
the champions Of Prohibition, l desire
to state, more fully, my reasons for
preferring the Dispensary to Prohibi-
tion. | entertain the highest respect
for those who are Prohibitionists from
principle, and as will be seen from the
above quotation, and from this article,
have always had leaning towards
the theory Of Prohibition myself, for
theoretically it looks well, but expert
ence and observation have taught me
that practically it is failure.
In 1885, when [ was about twenty.
three years old, We bad an act passed
by the Legislature prohibiting the sale
Of liquor in Barnwell county. We did
not leave the enforcement Of the Law
| solely to the county officers, but organ
lied an executive committee, of which
I was chairman. We brought case after
case for the violation Of the law, but
with the exception Of two or three, the
indictments Tc-e thrown out by the
grand jury as fast as they were presented.
The blind tigers" became so numer,
| GUS in my own town that I took it upon
! myself, personally, to enforce the law.
| Upon one occasion, the sheriff of Barn
| we'll county and myself caughta man
in the act Of selling liquor, We saw both
| money and whiskey pass, yet when this
| case went before the grand jury upon
| our evidence, the Indictment was
thrown out. In our endeayor to enforce
the law we found it utterly impossible
to induce the better class Of citizens,
j. g., those who had advocated Prohibi-
tion from moral standpoint and who
were the most clamorous for it. to as
siss in enforcing the law, although they
knew that it was violated with impuni-
ty. In nearly every instance the cases
which we're brought before the courts
were worked up by detectives employed
for that purpose. We also found that
many Of those who had veted for Pro-
hibision patroaized the blind tigers, ="
and would denounoe our executive
committee for trying to enforce the
law.
To this day have the ill-Will Of the
old barkeepers of my county for the
Jealous manner in which I endeavored
to have the law enforced. The law was
violated in every section of the county
with :mpunity, and became sucha farce
that the people becoming utterly dis
gusted, petitioned the Legislature to re-
peal it, which was done il 1886, after q
trial Of three years.
Although my faith, iu the enforce
nent Of a prohibitory law against the
sale Of liquor, was shaken to its foun-
dation By this personal experience, yet,
owing to my haired Of the old barroom
system, voted, while a member Of the
House of Representatives in 1890, for
what is known as the Child's Bill.
Aud when the question was submitted
to the Democratic voters of the State,
at the primary election in 1892, I voted
for Prohibition.
In 1894, when the Dispensary law
was passed, I was at first little skep-
teal as to its workings, yet was sur
prised and pleased with the uniqueness
Of the idea, and as it totally reVolu-
tionized the old barroom system, and
did away with many Of its attendant
evils, was willing to give it fair trial.
And although it has never had q
fair trial, as every obstacle that the
ingenuity Of man uldin7snt has been
thrown in the way Of its enforcement,
yet am convinced, even with its in
perfections and shortcomings, that it
comes nearer solving the liquor problem
than any law that have ever heard of.
Epitonized, the Dispensary law
recognizes the personal right Of maa to
drink, yetregulates and controls the sale
| Of liquor in such manner as 10 act as a
check upon his appetite.
AS lave a1ASo0y, LIZ 4OAA0C al SASiS',
shown the good features Of the Dispen-
sary, I will DOW show few weak points
| Of Prohibition.
Since the whole tenor of Mr.. Brun-
sons argument is, tbat it is wrong to
| drink or sell Whiskey under any circrm-
stance or in any way, ! wish to say,
that while I admit that it is best not
| to drink Intoxicating liquors as bever-
| age, and have since arriving at my ma
jorisy tried to live up to this belief and
| to inculcate the same upon the minds
af others, and would be willing (if it
were possible) to have absolute Prohibi-
| ton, yet it is idle for ore to assert dog
matically that it is sinful to take q
glass of beer, wine, or Whiskey as a
beverage. 1t is the abuse Of it, and
not the use Of it, that is sinful. The
Bible teaches temperance, not Prohibi-