Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1901-12-18
#iseetlaneu'1s geading.
VETOED THG DIsPENsARY.


Wright Bill as a Delusion and a
Snare.
Governor Gambler. Of Georgia, de-
clined to approve the dispensary bill
passed by the legislature, and in his
message he declared the bill to be a
delusion and snare, which would not
tend to prohibit, but would increase the
sale of whisky. His message is as
follows:
To the House Of Representatives:
am constrained to return to the house
Of representatives. in which 1t origina-
ted, without my signature, bill No.
33S, which seeks to amend section 1541
and 1914 Of the code Of Georgia by pro-
viding for the establishment and ope-
ration of dispensaries in the several
counties Of the state.
Three sufficient reasons impel me to
withhold my approval from this meas
ure. First. While 1t purports to be in
the interest Of temperance and for the
restriction Of the sale and use Of in
toxicating liquors, it will in my opin-
ion, however good the intent, have pre-
cisely the opposite effect. It will open
the f1ood-gates in dry counties and
overwhelm them. and at the same time
set back the cause Of temperance In
the state at least a generation.
Secondly. If the construction put on
| 1t by some able lawyers is the true
construction, 1t Is a delusion and a
snare, not only damaging to the cause
| 1t purports to foster, but misleading In
its language and its details. 1t Is os-
tensibly an effort to extend the prin-
ciples of local option, whereas it really
restricts and stiles local option in an
Overwhelming majority Of the counties
The old law sought to be amended pro-
determine by popular vote whether to-
tai prohibition Of the liquor traffic or
licensed barrooms shall prevail in that
county. This bill seeks to amend that
law so as to provide for elections In the
several counties Of the state to deter
mine by popular vote whether intox-
icating liquors snail be sold in them
from a dispensary or in licensed bar
rooms But no provision is mande any
where for an election to determine by
vote of" the people whether total pro-
hibition or the sale of liquors in dis
pensary shall be the policy Of the coun-
| ty. The bill provides that upon the
presentation to the ordinary Of any
county Of a petition signed by one
third Of the qualified voters of the
county he shall order an election, not
to determine whether intoxicating IL
quors shall be sold in the county or
Except in a dispensary"-in other
words, whether their sale shall be in a
dispensary or outside Of a dispensary.
II majority of the votes cast be "for
dispensary," then all are agreed that
the sale of liquors in a dispensary In
that county is legalized and provided
for. If, on the other hand, q majority
Of the votes cast be against a dis
pensary." then such liquors cannot, un-
der this Interpretation be sold in
that county in a dispensary, but can
be sold except in a dispensary"-that
Is, can be sold In open barrooms. Thus
under this proposed amendment Of the
existing local option law the people are
robbed of the right to say that intoxi-
eating liquors shall not be sold in their
counties at all, and the alternative Is
forced upon them in the III counties in
Georgia which have rid themselves Of
the liquor traffic in all its forms Of
dispensary or open barrooms. The peo-
pie in these counties have already de-
cided In the manner provided by law
that liquor shall not be sold within the
boundaries Of their respective counties,
but under the terms of this bill thus
interpreted the most irresponsible and
immoral third Of their voting popula-
| ton, regardless of race, color or pre-
vious condition." can force them to
submit to the restoration Of the liquor
traffic in their counties either in dis
lpensaries or in open barrooms. No
matter how the election goes, whether
for or against dispensary, the result is
the same-the sale Of liquors in the
county, If not in dispensaries then in
barrooms. This is the construction put
upon the bill by some good lawyers.
If 1t is the correct Interpretation the
bill Is unwise and unfair to the dry
counties and ought not to become a
law. If not then the language Is am
biguous, and it ought not to go on the
statute book because 1t would give rise
to pickering and vexatious and inter-
minable litigation.
It is evident that 1t was drafted with
special reference to the wet" counties
in the state, and without regard to
those, more than ninety per cent. Of the
whole, in which liquors cannot now be
lawfully sold at all. It's effect would
be to precipitate elections in all Of the
counties which have, under the local
option law, prohibited the sale Of liquor
within their borders. in order to give
the wet counties chance to establish
dispensaries; to lose those counties
which have been saved in order to save
those which have been lost; to damn
the redeemed by an awkward device to
redeem the damned.
Third. Instead Of putting a quietus
on the agitation Of the liquor traffic 1t
will inaugurate in almost If not quite
every county in the state fierce con-
tests over it, while all Of the most
| mnrthlasa element which IL NOW nrac-