The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-08-10
Biennial Sessions and the Brice Dispe1saTy
Bill.

Biennial Sessions and the Brice Dispe1saTy
Bill.
Editor The Manning Times:
The Columbia correspondent OF the
News and Courier reminds the voters
Of South Carolina that There are no
State officers going before the people
with important issues, and no issues
have so far been presented to the peo-
| ple''
The correspondent thinks, though.
that ''there are two issues that ought
to be discussed from every stump" and
that the two issues are biennial Ses-
sions'' of the Legislature and the
'sBrice Dispensary Bill" and he thinks
1T would be great pity if the cam
paign should continue to go by without
the candidates for the General Assem-
bly, calling attention to these issues: and
letting the people understand the sltu-
alton as to these two matters.
Biennial sessions is q Constitutional
amendment that was passed at the last
session of the Legislature and this
amendment provides that after the
legislative session of 1906 the LeSlsIas-
ure OF South Carolina will meet ben
tally instead of annually.
Biennial or annual sessions OF the
Legislature will be the question for the
voters of South Carolina to settle at the
ballot box at the general election that
will be held on the first Tuesday follow
ing the first Monday in November next,
and not at the coming primary election
as some may think.
If a majority OF the votes cast at said
election is for biennial sessions of the
Legislature, then the Legislature will
meet once in every two years. II
majority of the votes is against biennial
sessions, then the Legislature will con-
tinue its custom of meeting IN annual
sessions.
Asa member of the General Assem-
bly of the sessions of 1899 and 1900, we
voted against the act providing for the
Constitutional amendment, and at the
general election we will vote against
biennial sessions Of the Legislature Tor
South Carolina.
TIE Constitution OF South Carolina,
Article l., Section 3, advises that "Ihe
General Assembly ought frequently TO
assemble for the redress OF grievances
and for making new laws, as the CON-
mon good may require"
The article and section of the Constr
tuition quoted furnishes the best among
many other good reasons why depart
ure of the State from annual sessions OF
its Legislature should never be voted
for. for two years is q long time, 1t
might be, to have TO submit to grlev-
Gus legislative wrong and injustice.
The supporters Of biennial sessions
claim that it will be a very economical
measure and will save to the taxpayers
many thousands of dollars a year.
If we could be assured that extra ses-
sions Of the Legislature would never be
convened. then we might believe that
biennial sessions of the Legislature
would prove financially beneficial to
the taxpayers of South Carolina. Until
we are assured of this fact we will still
be opposed to biennial legislative ses-
sions for South Carolina.
Georgia, the Empire State Of the
South, has been referred to as a model
State for biennial legislative sessions
and its action one worthy of adoption.
Georgia can no longer be pointed out as
a State of biennial legislative sessions,
for biennial sessions expired in Georgia
in the month of July orAugust, 1903,
and in July, 1904, we find the legislative
BODY of the ''model State" of Georgia
in annual session.
We believe the three members to the
House of Representatives from Claren-
don in the sessions of 1899 and 1900
voted against biennial sessions. How
the delegation in the House of Repre-
sentatives from Clarendon voted on this
measure in the sessions of 1902 we
cannot now recall, but we are quite
sure the House delegation from Claren-
don in the sessions Of 1861 voted
against biennial sessions of the Legis-
lature.
The question we have been touching
on is one that is to be decided by the
voters of the State at the next general
election and what we have written rel
atiye to the question that is to be de-
cided has not been written for the pur-
pose of influencing a single voter, but
to let the voters of Clarendon know
that we do not believe that the depart
ure would be wise one, or that the
beautiful expectations OF financial gain
will ever be realized.
The correspondent further says:
The other question on which the
masses ought to be informed and on
which there should be an expression OF
opinion on the part of all candidates for
the General Assembly. whether for the
House or Senate, is upon the Brlce Dis
pensary bill.
Briefly stated, the :'Brice Dispensary
bill" provides THAT when people
no longer wanted the dispensary sys-
tenn, or it was jeopardy to the peace
and good order, they could vote it out
of the county. If upon vote OF the
people the dispensary was no longer
wanted, then the machinery was pro-
vided in the Act for its removal. Those
who advocate the Brice bill insist that
it is simply home and self-government.
The fight will no doubt be again made
at the next session of the General As
semblv, ana every member of the Cen
eral Assembly ought, before the peo
pie, to say how he stands upon this
measure, and whether he thinks each
county ought to regulate its own liquor
affairs. or whether it ought to be a
State matter. and what applies to one
county must apply to all, and if the dis
pensaries be in vogue in one county !
they must be forced on every other
county in the State, and that the step
to prohibition that was promised can
never be taken. unless the people stop
buying liquor, as the dispensaries once
being opened are never to be closed"
The bill was cleverly amended by the
friends of the dispensary so as to para
I'VE it and practically make it dead
letter. The law as passed now says if
county is disgusted with the dispensary
and no longer wants it for any reason,
it can vote it out of the county, but
with big B if it no longer wants the
dispensary it must pay a stated tax upon