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

of Senator b. r. Tillman, published
in the Keowee Courier August %:
Hon. b. r. Tillman.-Dear Sir:
1t was not to be expected that you
would adopt my view of tho princi-
pies underlying the dispensary law,
but l desire to assure you that l ap-
preciate the spirit of your letter, pub
lished 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
m oment, and ] have no desire to
bring my personality into the dis
cussion, let me assure you, in pass
ing, that my moral support has been
given to the enforcement of the dis
pensary law. When Governor Hey
ward expressed determination to
enforce the law in Charleston l wrote
him a letter of warm commentator |;
not because l was in sympathy with
the dispensary law, but because l
am opposed to lawlessness and in
favor of fostering respect for duly
constituted authority. But think
you miss both the spirit and the let
ter of Pope's we'll known couplet.
He did not say:
about forms Of law let fools contest,
That law which is best administered is
best"
He was not speaking of Legislative
enaotments, but of governments and
creeds as they affect human welfare,
and he said
"For forms of government lot fools con-
test,
Whate'er is best administered is best"
If there is inherent vice in the law
itself, efficient administration OF the
law cannot cure it.
Referring to the decision of the
Supreme 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. / am not fanatic on
the subject, though you put me in a
class with the "unco guild and rigid
righteous" who think it sin to
drink liquor. AS you say that you
have not that decision before you,
take the liberty of supplying a full
quotation in order that it may be
seen that 1 have argued the matter,
not az fanatic, but from the point
of view of the Supreme Court.
You will recall that at the Novem-
Der term, 1898, in 1894 the Supreme
Court decided that the dispensary
law was unconstitutional, Justice
MCGOWAN concurring with Chief
Justice McIver in the decision, and
Justice Pope dissenting. The same
year, 1894, Justice Gary having sue
ceeded Justice MCGOWAN on the
Supreme bench, the court decided
that the law was constitutional, Jus.
tices Pope and Gary concurring, and
Chief Justice McIver dissenting. l
am frank enough to say that if l
we're hunting something that l could
"9uote with unction," could find it
in the dissenting opinion.
The following paragraph, found in
State vs. Aiken, 42 S. c., page 231,
contains the groundwork OF the de-
cision upholding the constitutionality
of the law:
"Before proceeding to considera-
tion of the specific objections urged
against the constitutionality of the
act (of 1899 we desire to state at
the outset that in our opinion the
following propositions embody the
principles governing this case:
"uD. 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,