Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1900-01-17

limits at their own expense. AS
matter of fact, we do not like either
one of these propositions. We think
it would be much better to devote all
profits to the maintenance OF free
Keely institutes and orphan asylums.
The second proposition, while having
the appearance of justice on its face,
really provides means whereby those
counties which believe the less liquor
the less harm, may be coerced into
accepting legalized liquor shops with
unlimited capacity for debauchery.
There is deep lying injustice in the
whole idea of the discrimination sug-
gested in the bill. Every citizen and
every county contributes to the sup
port of the state government, and 1t
seems that if the state government IS
going to undertake to control the IL
quor business at all, it should do it in
the interest of every citizen and ev-
cry county. If the illegal sale of Ii
quor, for instance, is not an ofense
against the sovereignty of the state,
then it is not legal offense at all,
and the state has no business with it..
If it is an otfense against the whole
state, then it is as much the business
of the state to punish it in counties
where there are no dispensaries as in
counties where there are dispensa-
ries.
In the theory of this bill, so far as IL
applies to the distribution of profits
and the appointment of constables,
we are unable to see the slightest rec
ognition of the principles which are
supposed to actuate those citizens who
believe in prohibition. Indeed those
sections of the bill seem to be drawn
on the presumption that the prohi-
bitionists are not deserving of any
consideration whatever. The clear
ness with which this assumption is
manifested is calculated to give rise to
feeling of resentment which finds
expression in an inquiry into the mo-
tives of the advocates Of the bill.
And this inquiry will naturally be
a very suspicious one. The represen-
tative who is not willing to accord to
prohibitionists credit for sincerity OF
motive will not get credit for sincerity
of motive from prohibitionists. Under
the Winkler bill, for instance;it will
be possible for the governor to appoint
enough constables to make their sup.
port very burdensome to prohibition
county. AS such county will have
nothing to do with these constables ex-
cept to pay them, the thing can be
managed so as to allow the illegal bus
mess to flourish without restraint.
lG can IHuS Ue ueuOuSlIdtSu tioo Pio
hibition is failure" and how dispen-
saries will he evolved is easy TO see.
The spirit of the provisions of the bill
under consideration fully warrant this
assumption as to their motive.
Although the proposed discrimina-
ton in the distribution of dispensary
funds is unjust, sincere prohibilionists
may easily bring themselves to toler-
ate it; but we hope the other objec-
tionable feature will be changed. Let
the lawmakers sci aside something
like 10 per cent. of the earnings in
dispensary counties for the enforce
ment of the law in all counties, or let
there be a direct appropriation from
the state treasury for the purpose.
But however the matter may be ar
ranged, eliminate that feature of the
bill which makes possible the coercion
of prohibition counties into sanction
ing the legal sale of whisky against
their sacred principles.