The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-08-25

Tat a%@h!ch Is best administered ii
best"
And our not agreeing on the dis
pensarY question and the liquor ques
tion comes from the fundamental diff
ference OF opinion IS to how il is best
to police the liquor TRAFFIC. The Pro.
hibitionists declare 1t Is sinful to
drink In moderation, wine or whiskcy,
while q largo majority of US cannot
see any foundation in morals or re.
ligi0n for any such contention. Every.
body recognizes the evil Of drunken.
ness, and how to minimize or to pre-.
vent it is tho whole question. You
say prohibit the sale. l say sell by
bonded officers, under stringent regu
lations, In the daytime only, and have
the law enforced. The profit which
Is an Incident and not q purpose In
this sale, to go where 1t is most need.
ed; that Is, into the school fund Of
the State. 1t would make DO differ.
ence If 1t went into the fund of the
general treasury, and the school fund
increased from other sources. But
that IL a subterfuge. No one drinks
any more or patronizes the %dispensary
because the profits 60 to the school
fund. / cannot see any harm or sin
In obtaining revenue from q traffic
that Is irrepressible. The Uniter
States Supreme Court protects each
citizen In the right to import for his
own use, and no law OF the State can
prevent 1t. The poorer and more ig-
norant classes, who cannot thus CD.
tain liquor, have been. and always
will be supplied through some local
agency, no matter what the law
against selling liquor may be.
THE EXAMPLE OF KANSAS.
You quote Governor Hoch, of Kan.
sas, but YOU do no discuss or explain
the official statistics in regard to
drinking and the payment of the
United States internal revenue license
by retail dealers in that State. There
are no saloons in South Carolina for
the young TO see any more than there
are in Kansas. God FORBID they
Should eve return. Some OF your CO.
laborers in this fight against the dis.
pcnsary system, your allies and coun-
sellers, are tho editors OF papers which
have always fought the dispensary
and are now schcming to got high
licenses after prohibition has failed,
a. 1t will fall. There Is not a civilized
Government in C~hristerdom as far as
L know that does not derive a revenue
from the sale of liquor and prohibition
vas an unknown thing until about
sixty years ago. The United States
Government received last year from
thi8 source upwards Of $l70, 600, 900.
l think there are only three Sta ties at
this time that cling to prohibition.
Iowa and Vermont had 1t some years
ago, but they have abandoned 1t for
local option, with the right to vote In
saloons IL wanted, and that ia what is
hoped for here by your chief sponsors
Of the press.
One word more and I am through.
Let us see about your historical paral-
lei about the great leader who was
commanded to go down against the
AmalckitcS. The Hebrews Of old,
true to their instincts of thrift slew
The abominabie tribe, but saved the
best OF the sheep and oxen, as Saul
claimed for sacrifice, and you 80 on
TO state as an historical fact THAI 1.-THE
Government Of q State was command
ed by the moral sense Of the .beople
expressed at the ballot box to go down
and destroy the liquor tfa-I nd
when called to account it makes the
pitiful plea that while it has not de.
stroyed the traffic 1t has managed 1t
so 90 to get money for the Taxpayers,
Your parallel is not a parallel at all.
PEOPLE DID NOT ORDER PROHIBITION.
The people Of South Carolina have
never instructed It's Government tC
prohibit the sale of liquor. In the
separate box provided by the Demo.
cratic executive committee In tho
Democratic primary of 1892, the vote
stood, as ] re~collect, 35, 600 for prohi.
bitiOn, 25. 600 against 1t, while 80, OC(
die not vote on 1t at all. CT quote
from memory.) That election was a
side show and you have no right tC
magnify It's Significance.
This Is government Of majorities
and no majority Of the people has evel
given any such order, while when the
question has been passed on since di.
rec5ly and positively a half dozen
times, the people said that the dis,
pensary la" was a better and more
sane solution. Isn't it about time to
stop abiding to that election. The
~diSpensary system does not rest for Its
support upon the money that it brings
IN. 1t rests on the claim OF It's de.
tenders backed by experiences of our
people and statistics, as aTording
more protection against the vice OF
drunkenness than any other system,
prohibition or license either
II 1T has done this In spite OF NAL
administration aud mismanagement.
what would 1t not do If such men as
DR.. Cromer and his friends would DIV,
10 the enforcement OF the law their
great moral support?
We do not ask endorsement, but In
q Government where a majority rules
"e have had q .ipht to expect co.ope
ration and assistance, and we have
DOT had it yet. "Render unto caesar
the things that are C2esar's," was the
Command OF The Master Himself.
When the statute has been practically
Innu.led by the board OF directors,
Whcn tho restrictive features h&vc
been allowed to drop into issue, have
the PrOhibitionists lent their assist.
ance by standing up boldly for the
law? Had they done SO we would not
be now where we are.
JEFFERsON's AUTHORITY.
You have been kind enough, nv
dear sir, to remind me OF Jefferson's
epitaph. You declare the people do
not need advice, but they need an Oh.
porGuplGy TO vote. Allow me to re-