Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1905-09-06

was Wnolly unexpected TO tue peO-
pie of the State and to the best law
yers in it. l know, because / had
talked with many of them on the
subject. Judge Mct4owan retired
from the bench the July following
and Justice Gary took his place. Mr..
MCGOWAN had not, as I recollect, Of
fered for reelection the preceding
December, and when Judge Gary
was elected no one dreamed that the
issue would be presented in that
light. While it was fashionable in
those days to say Governor Ben Till
man "gave orders to the General
Assembly," I here declare on my
personal honor that / had nothing
whatever to do with that election,
and that Justice Gary's opinion as to
the constitutionality of the dispen.
sary law was we'll understood by all
who conferred with him, and that he
was as little expectant of the decree
which was promulgated in April fol-
lowing as any other man in South
Carolina.
1t may be that the reopening of
these old wounds and the continued
attacks that are being made on me
may revive factionalism in South
Carolina and / call all fair minded
men to bear witness that this agita-
tion about the dispensary and abuse
of all who have had anything to do
with it from beginning to end is not
being pressed by me or my friends,
that it is the other side that is urg-
ing the fight, and again repeat that
if there shall again be revival of
bitterness in the coming campaign
the blame cannot justly be laid at
my door. / have never been meek
or disposed to "turn the other
cheek" when I have been smitten,
and, while depreeate this style of
warfare, ! am prepared to meet
onslaughts of this or any other kind,
let them come from whence they
may. B. r. Tillman.
Trenton, S. c., August %.
Dr.. Cromer's Last Say.
The following is DR.. Cromer's re-
ply to the foregoing letter of Senator
Tillman:
Hon. L. r. Tillman-Dear Sir {:
Your letter, published this morning,
calls for an explanation and dis
claimer.
1t greatly surprised me that any
thing in my last letter seems to war;
rant the inference that l am trying
to mislead the people. l took it for
granted that all who have intelli-
gence enough to follow the discus
sion knew already that the Supreme
Court had upheld the constitution
ality of the dispensary law, including
the profit feature. I said that the
Supreme Court and the prohibition
lists are together in the proposition
that "liquor in it's nature is danger
GUS to the morals, good order, health
and safety of the people," and that
"from that point of view the State
may take control of the traffic to
police it, but not to profit by it,"
That language means, if it means
anything, that the State may take
control of the traffic for the purpose
OF controlling it, but not for the pur-
pose of profiting by it. Under the
decision of the Supreme Court con-
troll must be the main object trade
and profit must be merely incidental.
/ was combating the position of
those advocates of the dispensary
who urge the profit feature "as a
justifying fact" and who are vir.
tually teaching the people that we
should support the system as profit
able revenue measure. The argu.
ment stated in logical form is as fol-
lows:
If liquor in its nature is dangerous
to the morals, good. order, health
and safety of the people, it is wrong
for the State to take control of the
traffic to profit by it. But the
Supreme Court holds that liquor in