The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1900-08-22

wines at our tables in moderation an(
the sale of it for such purposes. Mucl
is made of the fact that Christ made
wine for people to drink on one ocCa
sion. But when a man, because Jesus
made u light and harmless wine for peo
pie to drink ut u marriage, inIors thai
therefore we are right in selling for q
profit mean whiskey for people to drink
to the ruin Of their bodies and the dam
nation Of their gouls, he had better go to
school to learn u little logic, or little
common sense.
| repeat with renewed emphasis that
the sale Of whiskey as a beverage is an
immoral act and | declare that he is
either II religious ignoramus or rclig.
ious impostcr who tries to bolster up
the whskcy traffic with the Bible and
cover up the shame and guilt Of it under
the sacred name of Christ
When a man tells me that tho whskey
traffic is a necessary evil" l can have
some patience with him. But when a
man of influence tries to protect this
monster evil from attack by hosting
over it the pure banner Of Christ, it is
time for all who love the Bible and the
Savior Of men to lift up their voices in
indignant protest against such desccra.
rion OF things sacred and divine.
The Senator, it seems, is expecting an
apology from me. | am sorry to disap-
point him. But, unfortunately, he dis
appointed me first when he made the
false charge about an unholy alliance
between the preachers and bar-kcepers
We had right to expect that, as soon
as his attention was called to the inius-
ticc of the language, he would be manly
enough to withdraw it instead, he has
defiantly reasscrtcd it, He has very
sanguine temperament il he expects an
apology from me, under these circum-
stances.
Who started this unpleasant affair ?
so far as l know, there was not
preacher in South Carolina who had ut.
tered one public word in criticism of
him, or contemplated doing so, until he
gratuitously flung wanton insult in
their faces. Did he think they lacked
the manhood to resent it ? Senator Till
man knows that the great majority of
the preachers arc standing where they
always stood. They have always been
for prohibition and against the whiskcy
traffic; and they are not deludcd into
believing that it is no longer the whis.
key traffic because it has been christcncd
u "DispensarY" by its proud "god
father" He knows that the word CALI
ancc," in its common, popular and pro.
per meaning, implies Il compact and he
exists or ever has existed between
preachers and bar keepers"
Again, the Senator declares that some
OF the pl eachcrs are trying to take charge
of the politics of South Carolina 1t is
not my business to speak for the preach
ers of South Carolina as a Lody. But
know the Christian ministers Of the
State far better than MIR. Tillman does,
and say that this charge also is abso.
lutely false. There is no truth in it. In
their ministerial capacity, they arc hay
ing nothing to do with politics except in
so far as politics overlap the sphere of
not preach morality and religion, what
can he preach Perhaps the Senator
would not gricve if they should quit al.
together. At any rate, it would be to
the advantage Of his whiskcy traffic.
He thinks ought to produce certificates
in proof Of certain things | said. | will,
the day after he produces certificates of
proof that some preachers are making
an effort to take charge Of the politics
Of the State-giving the names Of the
preachers so doing, with the proof Of the
charge Abundant proof of what said
is to be found in the speeches which he
has made in this campaign. 1t is true
that assertions Of his respect for preach.
ers are sandwichcd in between the most
contcmptuous expressions concerning
them, in which he pretty nearly exhausts
his copiOus vocabulary in this line. But
it is matter Of no Importance. Who
cares whether he feels contempt for the
preachers or not ? Certainly not the
preachers. If he respects them, very
well. If he does not respect them,
equally well.
But | would like for the people to give
a moments attention to the Senator's
remark that "prohibition is no longer a
moral question" If this foolish remark
means anything, it means that it was
once moral question, but has ceased
to be so. When did this question lose
its moral character, and why / sup.
pose his idea is that it was a moral qucs-
tion before it began to be discussed
upon the hustings. Before that, it was
question of right and wrong; now it
is not question OF right and wrong
Great is politics The moment moral
question is brought into the arena Of
politics, it loses its moral quality and
moral bearings. 1t is my deliberate
opinion that man who can seriously
set forth proposition like that, would
well, hesitate to draw the inevitable
conclusion. Common sense teaches that
if it was question Of right and wrong
seven or ten years ago, it is q question
of right and wrong to day.
G. 8. GARDNER.
Richmond, Va, Aug. II, 1900
-@S->.