Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-29
TIhLMAN VS, CROMRR.
Another Installment Of l)iSpen'
Sary Controversy.
REJ0INDER Of THE SENATOR.

InEJV1NuEn II VT 1HE CENh lVh
The Misquotation of Pope-The gu
preme Court Decisions Reviewed
The Profit Feature-Alleged Misrep'
resentation - Senator Denies TIT
Election Of Gary.
The following open letter from Sen
ator Tillman was published in the
daily papers last Saturday:
Hon. Geo. B. Cromer:
| Dear Sir: I was absent from the
state a few days after the Anderson
meeting, and since my return home
Sunday / have been quite unwell
hence delay in answering your "re-
joinder," which appeared in the
newspapers Of the 18th.
I have read what you say care
fully, and with all due respect II
seems to me you are begging the
question. I quoted Pope's couplet
from memory and 1t Is lucky that
misquoted It. else you would have
had little to reply to, but I cannot
agree with you that I" missed" either
the sense or the spirit"
I charged existing conditions In
dispensary matters to mal-adminis-
tration and to legislation in chang
ing the law and depended upon the
last line of the quotation to sustain
my contention:
THAT law which Is best admins
tered Is best"
OF course your quotation must be
verbatim and II Is even stronger In
sustaining my argument than my
own recollection Of the words, for
II whatever form of government"
an autocracy, limited monarchy or a
republic, Is better than any other
when II Is best administered" 1t
seems to me that you must be wrong
In claiming III there Is inherent
vice in the law itself, efficient admin
istration of the law cannot cure it.
| We are not discussing that phase
at all. You class the dispensary sys-
tenn as inherently vicious, as contra
distinguished with the licensed sale
of liquor, and the prohibition Of its
sale at ALL According to Pope. as
you quote him, whatever" form the
law might take as among these three
would be best II II Is administered
best" That Is all I have ever con-
tended. / believe the dispensary sys-
tenn can be better administered than
can prohibition, and I am opposed
to any form of license, high or low,
because II has the inherent vice" of
money making by the individual. and
this to my mind is the most deadly
poison arising out Of the whisky
traffic. hardly think you will deny
that the dispensary law fearlessly
and honestly administered as 1t was
Originally framed would be better
than prohibition not enforced.
However it was not this part OF
your rejoinder which gave me any
concern. because 1t almost answered
itself and only mention 1t inciden-
tally as I am answering you.
The point which I wish to press
on your attention and that Of those
who may be interested in our discus
sion of this question is the lame
and impotent" conclusion at which
you arrive in your discussion of the
dispensary from a legal standpoint.
You are a lawyer and an able one'
while I am only a layman, but your
reading must have been limited or
your reasoning powers at fault to
rest your case as you appear to do on
the claim that the prohibitionists are
sustained throughout in their views
by the decisions Of the supreme court.
You quote the decision In the case
of the State vs. Aiken. 42nd s. c.,
p. 231.
THAT liauor in its nature Is danger
Gus to the morals. good order. health
and safety Of the people, etc. and
then you say mote then the Ian
guage in which you define the atti-
tude of the prohibitionists is exactly
the language in which the supreme
court defines the attitude Of the law
on the subject. That decision fixes
the point of view from which the
state Is bound to regard the ques-
ton; and from that point Of view
the state may take control Of the
traffic to police 1t but not to profit
by It,"
| You give your own Interpretation
to the language used by the court,
but to me 1t Is altogether without any
warrant, except as your individual
opinion and in direct opposition to
the entire line Of thought and reason
ling of the Judge who wrote the
opinion In the State VS.. Aiken.
Iouote from the same decision. page
239:
1.-The act shows that the legisla-
ture had in view the protection OF
the morals, good health and safety
of the state in dealing with the ques-
ton. Many safeguards are thrown
around the sale Of liquor. The COM
missioner Is TO De All dDSldlIlcT iioHi
intoxicants. The liquor is to be tested
by the chemist and declared to be
pure. The liquor Is to be sold only
by the package, which cannot be
opened nor drunk where sold. The
sales can only be made In day time.
Persons cannot be appointed on the
county board of control who are ad-
dicted to the use Of intoxicating
liquors. No person can be appointed
county dispenser who has ever been
adjudged guilty of violating the law
relating to intoxicating liquors, nor
who Is keeper of a restaurant or
place Of public amusement. nor who
is addicted to the use Of intoxicating
liuuors as q beverage.
1.-The county dispenser shall exc
cute a bond in the sum Of $4,000.
upon which suit for damages may
be brought for violation Of the
provisions Of the act. by wife. child,
parent, guardian, employer or other
person. A majority Of the votes In
a township may prevent the estab-
Ilishment Of a dispensary. The county
dispenser shall take an oath therein
prescribed. A printed or written re-