The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1905-11-02

NOlllu uuI uC ulSdu SllSuSu W CNSh
indirectly accuse him of taking the
stand he has with the view of furth.
ering his political ambition. We
confess that We do not know which
is the popula. side and We never
stopped to consider that phase of the
matter. The editor of THE REC
ORD has no political axe to grind
nor does he aspire to any office,
whatever may be the outcome of the
present agitation. ,
"To this question (No A. The
Record quotes its weak defense of
some weeks ago, etc. He ADMITS
that it would be foolish to lose the
revenue if the amount of liquor sold
Will not be diminished says the
Mail, and adds that it agrees with
us and that this is the first sane
thing We have vet said on the sub
ject. Well, We might retort with
equal truth that the Mail has yet to
say anything on the subject that is
not weak and silly, but that would
be no argument. Of course 1t would
be foolish to vote out the dispensary
and let as mach liquor as ever be
sold. There is no "admisSion
about it. If we have ever said aught-
10 the contrary kindly cite us when
and whe: c. And We believe that if
the people of Williamsburg have
the manhood to rid the county of
the dispensary incubus they are
going to do all in their power to en-
force prohibition.
Now for the Nails grand coup.
We really hate to prick our friends
bubble of concert that his wheezy
old bellows has blown up, but he.e
goes:
The Mail quotes from our edi-
torial of September 2S:
"The argument the Mail offers
that a man who votes against the
dispenSary Is not necessarily a pro-
hibitionist, is mole ingenious than
ingenious. Under the Brice law
the people are confronted squarely
with the option between prohibition
and dispensary. The high license
man, the bar-room and blind tiger
cut no figure at all without change
of the constitution. When "a man
votes against the dispensary he casts
his ballot for prohibition, and con-
scientious voter in so doing must
feel morally bound to support what
he has helped to establish. The
high license, bar-room and blind
tiger bugaboos are largely imaginary
any way and sensible people take
them at their true valuation"
Then from October &c:
The Record certainly will not be
so foolish as to undertake to prove
that man who votes "no dispen-
sary" ticket is for prohibition, and
not for blind tigers, high license or
something other than prohibition.
The Mail asserts that such a man
would vote for something else, there
fore upon our friend rests the bur-
den OF proof. Our esteemed con-
temporary might just as we'll declare
the moon to be made of green cheese
and challenge us to prove that it is
not, if we ventured to express a diff
ferent opinion. This is fair illus
tration of the Nails inane "loglc."
"On September 2S," says the
Mail, "our friend undertook to
prove that the man who voted
against the dispensary is prohibi-
ZIONIST" We undertook nothing of
the kind and how the Mail can have
the brazen effrontery tc try to make
us say something that We did not,
with evidence to the contrary star
ing it in the face the while, sur
passes comprehension.
On September 2S We said that
when a man votes against the dis
pe1sary he casts his ballot for
prohibition. Well, isn't that true?
He may be at heart bar-keeper,
bhnd-tiger or anything else, but
when there are but two things to
vote for-dispensary and prohibi-
tion-when he votes against the dis
pansary he certainly casts his ballot
for prohibition.
On October 26, to the Mails mod
est demand that We prove that the
man who votes a mo dispensary