Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-22
DR.. cRoMER IN REPLY.


Hon. B. r. Tillman.
Dear Sir: It was not to be expected
that you would adopt my view Of the
principles underlying the dispensary
law, but I desire to assure you that
I appreciate the spirit Of your letter
published In the papers this morning.
A final word in reply is required by
one or two passages in your letter.
While my own conduct Is Of small
moment and have no desire to bring
my personality into the discussion, let
me assure you, In passing, that my
moral support has been given to the
enforcement of the dispensary law.
When Gov. Hayward expressed a de-
termination to enforce the law In Char
lesion, wrote him letter Of warm
commentator; not because I was In
sympathy with the dispensary law, but
because 1 am opposed to lawlessness
and In favor Of fostering respect for
duly constituted authority. But !
think you miss both the spirit and the
le.te Of Popes we'll known couplet.
He did not say.
About forms Of law let fools con-
test,
That law which Is best administered
Is best"
He was not speaking Of legislative
enactments but Of governments and
creeds as they affect human welfare,
and he said:
For forms Of government let fools
contest,
Whate'er Is best administered Is best"
II there Is inherent vice In the law
itself, efficient administration Of the
law cannot cure 1t.
Referring to the decision Of the su-
preme court, which you say quote
with great unction," you say. "The
Prohibitionists In general and you, my
dear doctor, are thoroughly imbued
with the belief that liquor drinking is
dangerous to the morals. good order,
health and safety of the people" etc.
I am not a fanatic on the subject,
though you put me In class with the
''unco guild and rigid righteous" who
think 1t sin to drink liquor. AS you
say that you have not that decision
before you. take the liberty Of sup
plying a full quotation In order that 1t
may be seen that have argued the
matter not as a fanatic but from the
point Of view Of the supreme court.
You will recall that at the November
term, 1S93 the supreme court decided
that the dispensary law was unconsti-
tu;ional. Mr.. Justice MCGOWAN con-
curing with Mr.. Chief Justice McIver
In the decision, and Mr.. Justice Pope
dissenting. The next year, 1894, Mr..
Justice Gary having succeeded Mr..
Justice MCGOWAN on the supreme
bench. the court decided that the law
was constitutional, Mr. Justice Pope
and Mr.. Justice Gary concurring, and
Mr.. Chief Justice McIver dissenting.
I am frank enough to say that II /
were hunting something that I could
quote with junction." I could find 1t
In the dissenting opinion.
The following paragraph, found In
State VS.. Aiken, AZ s. c., page 231, con-
tains the ground work Of the decision
upholding the constitutionality Of the
law:
Before proceeding to consideration
of the specific objections urged against
the constitutionality Of the act (of 1889
we desire to state at the outset that,
in our opinion. the following PROPOSE
tions embody the principles governing
this case:
"Q). That liquor. In its nature, Is
dangerous to the morals, good order,
health and safety of the people, and
Is not to be placed on the same foot
ing with the ordinary commodities OF
life, such as corn, wheat, cotton, to-
bacco, potatoes, etc.
"(2) That the state, under Its police
power can itself assume entire control
and management Of those subjects,
such as liquor. that are dangerous to
the peace, good order, health, morals
and welfare Of the people, even when
trade Is one Of the incidents Of such
entire control and management on the
part Of the state.
"(3) That the act Of 1893 Is a police
measure. We are frank to say that