The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-02-03

III iidi DttH tlt1lFG lJdSOI VI Ills toNA
ty the liquor men, greatly against his
viii. His people, the majority of tn
better class. wanted the London bill.
Mr.. Morton asked if the majority o.
the qualified voters Of Wilmington would
ask for prohibition.
Mr.. Cooper: "The majority of the bet
ter class Of tho people would"
Mr.. Morton pressed his question.
Mr.. Cooper then recalled that Mr.. Nor
ton had with difficulty been elected to
the Senate two years ago on this very
question.
Mr.. C. w. TflIctt, of Charlotte, said he
came, paying his " expenses, to plead
his own cause. not representing any IN
tercsts. (hpplause.) Sixty years ago his
father, as q steward of the cross, was
battling against this very evil. Il
would to Cod he could have lived to soc
the line of battle now drawn up against
it, and | verify believe we have got them
ca the run" he declared.
lie was proud to belong to that church,
numbering $1,000 people in the Western
Branch alone, the great Methodist
church, which was now begging officially
for temperance legislation at the hands
Of the Legislature.
He was proud to belong to the great
Democratic party, and he had spent a
large part of his life combating this very
proposition, always saying that this
question could be settled in the Demo-
cratic party. He had been asked whom
the time would come. He believed tina
when the sun rose today, the time had
come.
Yes, the liquor men had made threats.
John Smith, running q saloon, could con-
troll the votes Of a crowd of negroes,
y --J1 -
ton of his kind. But, thank Cod, that
vote was out of the way.
Il believe he cried, that | have a
majority of the Democratic party with
ne in this" (ApplaEse.)
He recalled how four years ago the
Senator from M~ecklenburg had said in
this ball that he had pledged TO the liquor
mon that this question should not DC
brought UP. He believed that never
again would those seats belonging to
MocklcEburg county be occupied by any
man who would make airy pledge to the
liquor men Of the community. Cap
plause.)
AS to section five Of the bill, and the
argument that it was Illegal in putting
the burden Of proof upon the liquor men,
he would say that, while some one had
once said that the strongest thing about
I1QUOT vas Il2t II mace SuCn IOOlS Oh
the mon who did not drink it, he had
noticed that the strangest thing about it
was that it gave so much trouble to the
men who did not drink it.
Most of the courts in the land had de-
cI2rcd the liquor question a quasi-nuis-
ahce, and if it was a qua~si-nuisanca.
theS it was legal that the burden of proof
should rest upon the liquor men, who
should show a reason why they be al
lowed to maintain q quasi-nuisance.
Mention he'd been made CT laW-break-
lns in the prohibition States. It was the
liquor men themselves who broke the
law and caused all that trouble.
Mr.. S. G. Mcwborne, of Wilson, repre-
senting the Liquor Dealers Association,
spoke next. He said he was not oppos-
ing these bills because ne favored intern
pcrance, but because he believed that
evry locality should dcide this question
for themselves.
His objection to the Watts bill was in
the first place, that it forbid the dis
filling of liquor outside Of incorporated
towns. In his county there were many
good farmers who manufactured their
own grapes into wine and brandy, not for
sale, but for their own consumption.
This was an injustice to these farmers,
some Of them among the best citizens in
the county.
The same objection could be applied
to the London bill. And that went
farther, and said there must be no dis
pcnsary in towns of less than 1000 peo-
pie. There were many dispensarics in
towns of less than SEQ people, and this
provision would drive out those dispen-
sarics altogether. Therefore, those OF
the committee who favor Gisrensaries in
small towns should oppose this part of
the bill.
Before passing any law. the sentiment
Of the people affected should be de-
tcrmined, and the only way to determine
this was to let each locality regulate its
own affairs.
There was no saloon in North Carolina
that could not he stopped by the vote
OF the people in the neighborhood. There
was no law in North Carolina whereby q
man could get q saloon license without
the consent of the people Of the COM
munity.
Nr. Curtis: Suppose every man, wo-
man or child in a town is opposed TO
issuing a license and the commissioners
want to grant it, can they not do it,"
Mr.. Mowborne: Eyes, but those COM
missioncrs are answcrablc to the people.
Is It not to be supposed they Will carry
out the wishes Of the people who elect
thcm."
He considered that there were ample
laws now on tho statutes of North Car
olira whereby tho people could get what
thcy wanted in this regard.
# a saloon is deemed n nuisance, j
cen be driven out. Thcre is no law III
North Carolina compelling commissioners
to grant licenses.
If there is SO great a majority of the
peOplc in favor Of driving out saloons.
why do they not compel their commls-
sioncrs to hold elections and get rid OF
them, or demand that they grant no more
licenses.
It seemed to him there was no neceS-
sity for further legislation.
But it is said that there is no pro-
vision for dispcnsary. lis then all this
inspiring, apparently for prohibition,
really in favor of the ~dispcnsary?' he
asked.
But where was the use of this COM
premise with a dispcnsary? liquor
bought from them rladc a MAI just as