Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-02-10

where that county has none Of the bur-
den to bear. The bill has not kept
any county from exercising its right.
Is a Special Tax Constitutional?
Mr.. Nash of Spartanburg declared
the issue TO be solely the repeal Of the
haf-mill tax imposed on counties
which vote out the dispensary. He ar
gued on the constitutionality Of the
act now on the statute books. The
constitution provides that taxes shall
be levied equally upon all Of the coun-
ties. The act Of 1904 declares that
there shall be a special tax In a county
to enforce the general dispensary law
"a criminal law, and therefore Its
constitutionality Is doubtful.
There has grown up In Cherokee such
sentiment against yiolatians OF the
dispensary law that the law Is enforc-
ed rigidly although there Is no special
constabulary there. Any other county
having the sentiment against the sale
Of liquor will have the moral senti-
ment to enforce the law. He does not
believe that a county without a dis
pensary should participate In the prof
its, but there should be no penalties.
Declares II to be an Outrage.
Mr.. Foster Of Lancaster declared the
bill passed last year to have been an
outrage upon the freedom Of the peo-
pie Of South Carolina; II suppressed
freedom Of thought and freedom at the
ballot box. He favored the bill. 1t Is
q question which should not be left
to the people Of the incorporated towns
alone. It Is county matter.
This Is not question Of expediency,
not a question of blind tigers, but a
question Of right. He wants the peo-
pie Of Lancaster to have. the right to
vote on this question untrammeled. II
this bill should not pass he would try
to get Lancaster to vote out the dis
pensary even with the tax. - 9.
this tax had been placed upon Chero-
kee county.
Mr.. Otts-Simply. because the gov
ernor has not dared to do 1t. e.
Mr.. Foster continued that they had
q sheriff In Lancaster county who
would do more to keep down VIOLA
ton Of the law than all the dispen-
sary constables.
Mr.. Laney Is Satirieal.
Mr.. Laney defended the action Of the
house in passing this half mill tax
amendment last year. While Mr.. La
and a great deal of confusion resulted
with a great deal Of irony he declared
that he had voted for this "undemo-
cratic" measure. To knife the dispen-
sary would have q tendency to return
to the old barroom. Are not a great
many people in Cherokee giving their
support to the enforcement of the law
because they fear this one-hah mill
tax to be placed on them? He argued
that there Is crime In prohibition coun-
ties as a result Of drunkenness.
Mr.. Richards, as a member Of the
dispensary committee, spoke against
the bill. He declared his unalterable
opposition to strong drink, and II he
thought the bill would give prohibition
to South Carolina he would vote to
throw the state dispensary into the
Congaree river and to dynamite every
dispensary In South Carolina. But
what are the conditions In Maine, what
are the conditions In Kansas? There
are more legalized barrooms in either
Of those states than there are dispen-
saries in South Carolina. They are
legalized in that they are licensed by
the Federal government. There Is a
barroom in Kansas for every 419 of
population. Under the dispensary law
lima, less liquor selling than In any
other state.
Mr.. Otts-You are arguing that to
repeal the half mill tax would kill
the state dispensary. II 1t interferes
with local self government, had not
the state dispensary better be killed?
Mr.. Richards declared that prohi-
bition was passed In Atlanta under
Henry w. Grady's leadership, and
liquor flowed there just as freely as 1t
is doing now in Cherokee county, for
he has reliable information that Mr..
Otis has been misinformed In regard
to the conditions there since the dis
pensary was voted out. He was In
Lancaster once when there was prohi-
bition, and liquor was flowing freely.
There Is more contraband liquor seiz-
ed In the prohibition county Of Green
wood than in any other county In the
state.
Mr.. Ashley said there is only one
question involved and that Is the tax
ing of people to vote out an evil.
Mr.. Beamguard Of York declared
that imposing a tax Of half a mill Is
morality. The people are
supreme and they will not stand this
legislation which was put upon them
last year. He predicted a political up-
heaval unless something be done. He
Is one Of the 40 who voted for the orig
inal Brice bill last year.
Mr.. Otis. rising to a question OF
privilege. declared that there are few
er blind tigers in Cherokee county than
when there was a dispensary law. He
courts investigation to prove his state
ment. He spoke with great deal or
and declared that Mr..
Richards had accepted second-handed
The reports Of Illicit SELL
by a "sorehead," a magistrate whose
son had been running a beer dispen-
sary. He cited the figures as to sales
there Christmas 1903 and Chris tmas
1904 to show the vast difference In the
traffic since the removal Of the dispen-
sary.
The Vote on the Motion.
The house then voted on the motion
to strike out the enacting words, as
follows:
Ayes-Banks, Boyd, Brantley, Cliff
ton. Cutler. DesChamps. Doar. Dukes,
Edwards. Epting. E. J. Etheredge'
Ford, CASTOR, Cause, Glover, Graham,
Trav. D. L. Green, Gyles. Harley. D. o.
Higgins, Hutto. Irby, Kirven,
Laney Lawson. Little. Lyon. Pittman,
RI.
Those who voted nay on the motion
land favored the bilD were-Ardrey,
Arnold, Ashley, Baker. Bass Beam
guard. Bradham, Brant, Brice, Brown
ing. Bruce, Cloy, Cothran, Davis. De-
vore. Earhardt, L. B. Etheredge. Fos-
.er. Fraser. Frost. J. P. Gibson. w. ].
Gibson, w. Med. Green. Hall. Harrell-
,on. Haskell. Hemphill. Heyward.
keenan,, Kershaw, Lomax, McColl. Nc
Fadden. McMaster, Massey, Miller.
Morgan, Morrison. Moses, Nance, Nash.