The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1900-08-01

b!!1G, fanatics. or ecnem'H3 po'l.'-
clans Youts truly,
3 R. THlmar.
EditoFia'ly TIE Adrocste says:
.It needs not many words to charac
terize this matter. Senator 1illman's
letter does not modify his charge
Indeed he explains it and actually
argues to sustain his baseless state
ment-and so adds to the Insult
Whereupop it is our duty to say that
his statement is an inexcusable out.
rage-the greater because made by
a man whose position demands partl-
cuiar regards for truth and at least
ordinary respect for reputable people
His high opinion Of religious people
"cuts 40 figure when they differ
with MIN Then they are e!ied,
fanatics, etc " He seems to think
he carries all the wisdom of common
wealth and to differ Wit. him is folly
His entire course il this affair de,
serves rebake By al religious people
His abuse of good men will not help
his pet mons;rosity. the dispensary
That shame to our state and damage
to cur citizens vii! go And barrooms
will not come back either"
ANOTHER REFERENCE
Under the caption "Thst Unholy
Alliance" the Baptist Courier says
editorialIy this week
.'In one of his srecent speeches Sen
ator Tiliman is reported to have
spoken of an 'unho'y slliance Of
preachers and barkeepers We do
no. know whether ne is correctly
reported or not, but we presume ne
mus. have said something akin TO
that to have made such az impression
on the reporters mind. We Go not
pretend to say what the senator meant
aud what prompted him to say 1t
He was talking of the prohibition!sts,
and the fight now being made before
the speope of the State He was
talking of the prohibitionists,
and; the fight now being
made before the people Of the
State He has come forward as the
defender of the dispensary and
in opposition to prohibition, aud
he seems to be greatly disturbed
because there are some people
in South Carolina who are not wiling
to support the dispensary as against
prohibition. BE says that there IS
an .unboly alliance ofpreachs's and
ba,keepers If be means that there
has been an understanding between
the preachers and the barkeepers, on
this subject, he is mistaken If be
means that there has been formed az
organization of these elements for any
purpose, he is mistaken, and he
knows it If be means to insinuate
the: the preachers of South Carolina
would form an alliance with bar
keepers for ulterior ends, be surely
does not know the preachers OF this
State. Where does the funholy
alliance come ip2 Are the preachers
'unholy and are they working for an
tunholy' cause when they work for
prohibition? Or, are the 5arkeepers
the 'uaholy part of the alliance? If
80, wha. makes them tuuholy,' the
liquor traffic? That is the very thing
the senator is defending The dis
peasary was brought into being (and
the senator says he is the father Of it)
for that very purpose Is it possible
that he is willing to admit that he put
upon the people of South Carolina an
'unholy' thing, end that he is doing
ais best TO keep up this 'unIoly'
YORK? Senator T;l'man evidently is
uneasy lest The preachers good in
aaaence viii be powerful enough to
he:p break down the dispensary, ard
&c seems willing to throw contempt
upoa them by linking tnen with tue
ba.xeepers, and in this way break
their bold upon the people L is not
probable TIA; the people OF the State
will kindly receive this remark of Sen
ator Till2an, and he has in his zeal
for bis beloved institution, the dis
peasary, gone TOO ta. and his fling at
the preachers should be resented By
al. hight thinking people