Los Angeles herald., 1905-03-04
THE DIsPENsARY LAW
J. D. eethune Answers Stephen Bow
ers' Criticism and Claims Law
4 suoeksA


LOS ANGELES March 2, editor
Herald MY attention has been called
to the article IN The Herald OF this
date anent the Dispensary Law Of
South Carolina By Mr stephen Bow
ers, in which he attacks that law as
most stupendous failure and quotes
Chicago Journal, which publishes
some statistics to prove It such
But he has not told us that the Chi
cago journal is not Prohibition paper
and free from the Inevitable or Gus
tomary bias common to all politically
partisan sheets in the discussion OF DO
litical questions.
He also cites the report of the attor-
ney general of South Carolina, which
he claims shows startling increase
of crime in that state, since the adop-
ton Of the law in question.
Now II those allegations are true
even to the extent claimed by Mr..
Bowers. would they of themselves
damn law plainly and unequivocally
good and Just on It's face, as read by
ally inttii VI lnlellBenCe!
If there is any man, who is not en-
gagged in promoting or operating the
gigantic trusts the whole country is
now complaining against, who does not
think the Sherman antitrust law a
good and wholesome measure for the
country-I have never seen or heard OF
him. Yet since its adoption the world
,,at II.
see, such a. gigantic birth and growth
of them as has taken place since the
passage OF that law. Surely 1t is a
good law that "A common carrier Of
persons must provide every passenger
with a seat. He must not overload
his vehicle by receiving and carrying
more passengers than it's rated ca
law has been on our statute books for
more than thirty years in practice 1t is
a stupendous failure.
An evidently good law is one thing
and marks a step of progress in the
right direction. A failure or refusal
to obey or enforce it is another thing
and does not prove the law to be bad.
lIlC SlllCJ cIlOlCcI1iclI VI II HllShL uO
that. So I claim, after some familiar
ity with the dispensary law, that any
failures of beneficial results under 1t,
are due, not to the law itself, but to
the failure of enforcement.
1t is a reasonable law. No one need
resort to subterfuge or hypocrisy or
evasion of the law in order to obtain
So,
is or are practiced under so-called pro-
hibition laws.
Mr.. Bowers complains against the
profit feature of the dispensaryF law,
but he takes no note of the fact that
q quote the law, "All net income de-
rived by the state from the sale Of
liquors In this state, under the dis
pensary law, shall be apportioned
among the various counties of this
state. for the benefit of the common
schools"
Can a law be very bad which seeks
to divert the profits of "a commodity
now used for the most costly embel-
lishment of gilded palaces of vice, into
a fund for the advancement of learn
ing?
At present I have not the data from
which to answer Mr.. Bowers charges
as to what his quoted statistics show.
but will shortly have them at hand
and give him the benefit of them,
I will not close this (perhaps al
ready too long article), without ac-
knowledging the compliment paid me
at the beginning of Mr.. Bowers let
ter. and promising him my reasons for
falling into the "grievous error" as he
terms it, in defending such system
as the dispensary law.
J. D. BETHUNE.