The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-01-13
WATTSANDL LONDON BILLS
Mr.. Bailey, Chairman Of the Executive Ccmmit-
tee of the Hnti-Saloon League, Supports
Latter Measure as Going Further in
Contro! Of The Evil.
BY ]. ". BAILEY.

Written for the News and Observer.
Two bills to regulate the sale and man
ufacture OF Intoxicating liquors have been
introduced in the present General Assem-
Llv. One By Mr.. Watts in the House,
the other by Mr.. London in the Senate.
It is important that the difference be-
tween these bills be thoroughly under
stood.
The London bill provides for the eX-
cIusion of liquor selling and liquor man
ufacturing from the rural districts, as
does the Watts bill, but the London bill
goes this step further: 1t also excludes
the manufacture of liquor from towns of
less than one thousand inhabitants, and
the selling Of liquor from towns of less
thar five hundred inhabitants. There is
nothing in Mr.. Watts bill to prevent a
distiller or saloon-keeper having his place
of business incorporated, or to prevent
them from setting up their establish
ments in some of our smaller incorpOr-
ated towns.
Again the Watts bill permits q man
to buy grapes, berries or fruit and man
ufacture them into wine or cider. Ac-
cording to this, a distiller would not
have to move to the city, but only con-
fine his distilling to wine and cider.
This would lead to the establishment or
wine shops in places where there are
now saloons or distilleries, and it would
be very hard to keep them from develop
ing their business against the intent of
the law. But the London bill forbids
a man from buying grapes, berries or
fruit in order to manufacture them into
wine or cider for sale, and only permits
him to manufacture the grapes, berries
or fruit raised on his own land. 1t thus
recognizes individual rights, but strikes
down the wine shops.
The Watts Bill makes no provision
whatever for dispensaries, while the Lon
don bill makes it possible for incorpor-
ated towns OF five hundred population or
more to establish dispensaries by local
option. The ~dispensary is the special
aversion of the saloon keeper. 1t is also,
it seems to me, an almost necessary
step in the progress of our cities toward
prohibition.
1 direct special attention to that part
of the London bill which provides fol-
dispensaries. For the first time it of
fers the people of the State a plan under
which they may establish dispensaries
at Will. Heretofore it has been neces-
Sary for each town hat wanted a dis
pensary to make a fight in the Legisla-
ture. This has taken much of the Leg
islature's time and has been hard on the
towns. By adopting this feature of the
London bill, the Legislature will refer
this question to the people. I am sure
there can be no objection to this.
Finally, the London bill reverses the
conditions of local option. The present
law gives local option with the shoe on
the saloons foot. That is with the pre-
sumption in the saloons favor. The Lon
don bill calls for local option with the
shoe on the foot of the moral forces.
That is, with the presumption against
the saloon. The present law assumes
that saloons are wanted and are recog-
nized either as good things or as neces-