The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1902-01-22
LOCAL OPTION WAS KILLED
The Friends OF the Dispensary
Defeated the Measure In the
House,

1 House.
The first second-readinc b II tn til
calendar was Mr.. Sanders bii! To alIO
couUties to vote on the estahlishmen
or removal of dlspensaries. MI
! Tatum moved to recommit the bll
He spoke at length against it as direct
ed as Il blow against the dlspensar1.
/ Mr.. McGowan saw i'm this bill tb
tlislntegrating process which would re
suit in the final overthrow of the dis
ipensary.
Mr.. Dorrob--Do you mean by tina
admission that you are atraid 10 trus
this matter to the people?
Mr.. MCGOWAN replied that he woul,
not trust them with local option. Ii il
unwi~e to have the people, churches
fafpilies percnuially stirred up, and the
matter is now settled The dlspensary
law is effective only rs "a police regula
uon, and police regulation must
apply to the whole State.
Mr.. TowIll, of Lexington, said tina.
the people arc satisfied with the dis
pansary.
Mr.. Henry B. Richardson thought
the measure fraught with great danger
in opening a way TO elections. We
cannot satisfy all of the people. Either
the dispensary has decreased drunken
ness or just at the time it was started
a moral uplifting came upon the peo-
Eple, for conditions are better. What
Ils advocated as local op ion for coun-
Ties might be advocated for the town
ship and where would it end?
Mr.. Cooper, of Laurens, wanted to
know why this opposition to the bill2
Are the dispensary people, who are in
trenched, not willing for The people to
say what they want? He had favored
letting each county govern the dispen-
sarv in its own way and he had been
sustained in the campaign.
DIR. III. j. Kunard said that if this
law were passed Charleston woul
v,te the dispensaly out and liquor
would flow as free AS the tides on The
ocean.
Mr.. Sinklcr-Weli, the people of
Greenwood needn't come down there
and get drowned.
Mr.. Ashley-Would Charleston vct-
ing out the dispensary have anything
to do with Greenwood?
MIR. Sinkler-If Greenwood is now
"dry" county wherein i. il better than
Charleston would be without dispen-
saries?
Mr.. Klnard repl' eli to these several
questions by saying that the town of
Greenwood is dry, but the county at
large favors the disrensary.
Mr.. +. III. McMaster made a spirited !
defense of Charleston which had been !
dragged into this debate. Charleston
will do what is right. The State will
not permit itself to be overrun by the :
scum Of the earth. He favors the dis :
pensary, though not as at present
The constitution merely |
provides that liquor shall not be sold
by the drink. He is eternally opposed
10 the drenching of the State in blind
Tiger liquor, and this b,.l would not do ,
hat.
Mr.. Sinkler also warmed up in de-
tense of Charleston.
Or. Kinard stated that he did not
mean to reflect on Charleston in an op
probrious way, merely TO cite Charles
.on as a county opposed to the dispen-
,arY.
Mr.. Doiroh favored the bill. Each
county is best fitted to settle the mat '
.er for itself.
Mr.. lzlar, of Barnwell, had seen bar
rooms, prohibition and dispensary In
his county at different times. He he
ieves in the dispensarY. Baleful in
Iluences will he brought TO bear when
The questi> II is taken to the polls and
prohibition may, nominally, triumph.
He declared that the prohibition era in |
IN its history.
Mr.. Morgan, of Greenvillc, spoke in
favor of the bull.
The closing argument for the bill
was made by Mr.. Sanders, the author
of the bill If there is TO be disintegra-
lion, at whose hands will it be disiDte-
grated ? With all of the machinery of
the dispensary IN operation, if il be
voted out by the people, then is that
not evidence that it is Objectionable TO
them? If ii is not Objectionable, why
be afl aid of this bill? III the people of
:. county oppose dispensary they have
no way IN the woil TO get rid of 1T
now.
MT. UuuteT, vi Alhci, anu hI' M
Il. Smith, of Kershaw, opposed the bi l.
The latter admitted that the measure
is founded upon true and g~d Demo-
cratic doctrines, yet IL would not be-
wise TO have this whole matter opened
and the State thrown into turmoil.
The vote TO rccommit was taken and
the bill was rccommitted, or virtually
killed, by the following vote:
Yeas-Speaker Stevenson, All, Aus
tin, Banks, BeamSuard, l'ivens, Blease,
Brooks, Butler, Carer, Coggeshail,
Crum, Dean, DeBruhi, Domin,ck,
Elird, Elder, Estridge, CASTOR, Cur
din, Gunter, uaile, Hardin, Hollis,
Hough, Humphrey, Izlar, James, Jar
nigan, o. l.. Johnson, w. j. Johnson,