Lexington gazette. [volume] (Lexington, Va.) 1871-1962, 1903-02-04
The Dispensary System in South
Carolina

of the bill offered in the Legis-
lature by Mr.. Graham Clayton OF
Roanoke, providing for a genera
dispensary law for Virginia. The
system is not well understood in
the State, although severaI
sections have adopted the plan
Even where in force, opinions
differ as to. whether the system
suppresses or increases intern
perance.
The principle for the State tc
engage in the liquor business is
wrong. In South Carolina, where
the system has been tried and is
still in operation, the plan il
condemned by the friends of
temperance. How the system
works in that State is told in q
communication published in Sun
days Richmond Times-Dispatch,
by Rev. DR.. c.. S. Gardner of
Richmond, but who formerly for
seven years was resident of South
Carolina and while there studied
the temperance problem in the
light of the actual working of the
dispensary law. He says, in part /:
This system is advocated on the
ground that the State can supply
the demand of its citizens for
strong drink under safeguards and
restrictions that will reduce the
evils of the traffic as much as is
possible. The law has some
excellent restriction features.
l. The liquor is sold only in
packages, not by the drink.
2. Itdoes not permit the drink
ing of liquor on the premises.
3. 1t forbids the selling Of
liquor to minors and habitual
drunkards.
4. The selling place is closed
early in the evening.
5. 1t is closed on Sundays and
election days, and through an
order from the Central Board it is
possible to secure its closing on
public holidays or other days
when there is an obvious and i'm
portant public reason for doing so
l say this is possible and it is
sometimes done.
How has the law worked? When
the system was first inaugurated
in South Carolina, it did for
awhile diminish drunkenness, but
after it had been in operation some
years, this Improvement began to
disappear. The restrictive features
of the law were gradually, and to
a large extent, disregarded. The
administration Of the law fell, as
it will inevitably always fall, into
the hands of men who are not
interested in promoting temper
ance. Indeed, after a while, it
became apparent that the law was
being operated, not for the purpose
of promoting temperance, but for
promoting revenue, and the two
ends were absolutely contradictory
of each other. After a while, the
liquor men, who were driven out
of business by the system, learned
how to adjust themselves to it. 1t
is an OF en- secret that in some of
the large cities there is an under
standing between the "blind
tigers" and the dispensary to the
effect that if the "tigers" will
purchase their liquor from the
dispensary, they will not be
The dispensary in South Care
lima has become political machine
of great and far-reaching power,
ideally adapted to do dirty work
in the interest of the politicians
who control it. This is one of
the most offensive features Ct the
system. 1t las become a curse, Il
stencil, corrupt and corrupting
influence in the political life of the
State. AS they are logically |
bound to do. the chief advocates
Of the system now preach to the
people that the sale of intoxicating
liquors as beverage is justifiable
md right.
1t is of the utmost Importance
hat we should set ourselves
against system which makes the
State itself a wholesale and retail
liquor dealer, and brings every
citizen, willingly or unwillingly,
nto the business and makes him
IN immediate sharer in its profits.
Such a system inevitably checks
he growth of a healthful public
sentiment upon the subject, and
surely demoralizes and disinte-
crates the forces that are working
FOR temperance reform.
If it is right for the State to
,ffer to sell intoxicants to its
citizens, it is right for the citizens
% purchase and drink it.
The dispehsary not only
and almost disarms
is in the contest against the
raflic in liquor, but also in our
against the drinking of
t; ard so becomes ultimately an
Inti-temperance measure.
What RoOseve1t's Attitude To-
ward the Negro Has Done.