Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1905-08-23

OF the State can prevent 1t. The
poorer and more ignorant classes who
cannot thus obtain liquor have been
and always will be supplied through
some local agency no matter what
the law against selling liquor may be.
You quote Governor Hoch, of
Kansas, but you do not discuss or
explain the official statistics in re.
gard to drinking aud the payment of
the United States internal revenue
license by retail dealers in that State.
There are no saloons in South Caro-.
lima for the young to see any more
than there arein Kansas. God forbid
they should ever return. Some of
your co-laborers in this fight against
the dispensary system, your allies
and counsellors, are the editors of
papers which have always fought the
dispensary and are now scheming
to get high licenses after prohibition
has failed, as it will fail. There is
not civilized nation in Christen-
dom, as far as know, that does not
derive revenue from the sale of H.
quor and prohibition was an unknown
thing 60 years ago. The United States
Government received last year from
this source upwards of sl7O,OOO, 900.
l think there are only three States
at this time that cling to prohibition.
Iowa and Vermont had it some
years ago, but they have abandoned
it for local option with the right to
vote in saloons if wanted and that is
what is hoped for here by your chief
sponsors of the press.
One word more and am through
Let us see about your historical
parallel of the great leader who was
commanded to 60 down against the
Amalekites. The Hebrews of old,
true to their instincts of thrift, slew
the abominable tribe, but saved the
best of the sheep and oxen, as some
claimed for sacrifice" and you go on
to state as an historical fact that "the
government of o State was COM
manded by the moral sense of the
people expressed at the ballot box to
go down and destroy the liquor traffic.
And when called to account it makes
the pitiful plea that while it has not
destroyed the traffic it has managed
it 80 as to get money for the tax
payers" Your parallel is not a
parallel at all.
The people of South Carolina
have never instructed its government
to prob ibit the sale of liquor. In the
separate box provided by the Demo-
cratic executive committee in the
Democratic primary of '92, the vote
stood, as I recollect, $4,000 for pro-
hibition, $4,000 against, while $4,000
did not vote on it all Il quote from
memory. That election was a side
show and you have no right to mag
Nifty its significance. This is a gov
ernment of majorities and no ma
jority of the people has ever
given any such order, while when
the question has been passed on
since directly and positively a.
half dozen times, the people
said that the dispensary law
was better and more sane solution.
Isn't it about time to stop attending
to that election2 The dispensary
system does not rest for it's support
upon the money that it brings in. 1t
rests on the claim of its defenders
backed by experience of our people
and statistics, as affording more pro-
lection against the vice of drunken
ness than any other system, prohibi-
tion or license either.
If it has done this in spite of NAL
administration and mismanagement,
what would it not do if such men as
DIR. Cromer and his friends would
give to the enforcement of the law
their great moral support? We do
not ask endorsement, but in govern
ment where a majority rules we have