Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-08-29

lean you declare that "the state may
take control of the traffic to police
lit, but not to profit by it,"
On page 240 we find this:
"The judiciary" said Mr.. Justice
MCGOWAN in the case Of Town Coun-
Gil VS.. Presley, 33rd s. c., page 56.
"cannot run a race Of opinions upon
points of right, reason and expediency
with the law making power" Then
Mr.. Justice Gary added: 'The state
has a right through its own officers
in fact. It is It's primary duty-to en-
force its police regulations, which
fright inheres in government itself
and Is paramount to any right inher-
ent in citizenship. But referring to
the foregoing objection as matter Of
fact, It would not be as efficiently en-
forced by private individuals, be-
cause there would be the constant
temptation to make as large profit as
possible"
But referring to the foregoing OBJ
lection (that the same results could be
accomplished by allowing private In
dividuais to carry on the traffic) as
matter of fact It would not be as
efficiently enforced by private individ-
uals because there would be the con-
slant temptation to make as large
profits as possible" Further on Jus
tice Gary adds: "The dispensary act
Is itself an outgrowth OF a dissatis-
faction on the part of the people with
the manner in which the police power
when delegated, was abused" (by
permitting those who obtained the IL
censes to make as much money as
possible.)
Again I desire to direct your atten-
ton to the decision of the supreme
court of the United States in the case
of Vance VS.. w. A. Vandercook Co., ITO
u. s., D. 447, In which the constitution
ality Of the dispensary law was u :
held by our court Of last resort: 1T
is argued as the state law here In
que stion does not forbid but on the
contrary authorizes the sale Of intoxi-
cants within the state, hence 1t Is not
police law, therefore not enacted In
the exercise of the police power Of the
state and consequently does not oper-
ate upon the sale of original packages
within the state. But the premise upon
which these arguments rest Is purely
arbitrary and imaginary. From the
e. Aha ofo 70 10
sale of liquor subject to particular re-
strictions and only upon enumerated
conditions 1t does not follow that the
law Is not a manifestation Of the po-
lice power Of the state. The plain pur-
pose of the act Of congress having
been to allow state regulations to oper-
ate upon the sale Of original packages
of intoxicants coming from other
states, 1t would destroy its obvious
meaning to construe It as permitting
the state laws to attach to and control
the sale only In case the state abso-
lutely forbade sales Of liquor and not
to apply In case the state determined
to restrict or regulate the same"
How then, my dear sir, can you
seriously contend that "the state may
take control Of the traffic to police 1t
but not to profit by it," Our own
court in the strongest language main
tains the contrary: the supreme court
of the United States with the law be-
fore 1t sustained 1t, Notwithstanding
this feature, yet merely because you
feel that the profit feature Is an inher-
ent vice Of the dispensary law which
destroys It's usefulness and Its legal
ity. I must ask how can you seriously
argue such a point, and how can you
lend your great influence and intel
lect to mislead those who are ignorant?
You brush aside as wholly unworthy
of consideration the statistics which
I advanced to show that prohibition
does not prohibit, and that drunken
ness Is not as great in Charleston with
all it's blind tigers as 1t is In prohibi-
ton cities Of like size. You dismiss
these with a wave Of the hand, be-
cause they may make the people dizzy
and then assert most positively that
the supreme court said, "Stifie this
vampire that threatens the health and
life of the community" While 1t is an
indisputable proposition that the su-
preme court has never said anything
OF the kind and only used the language
which you quoted as the justification
of the legislature for enacting the dis
pensary law, to better control ana
minimize the evils inseparable from
liquor. II was merely strongly word
ed declaration that the law was an ex-
ercise of the police power.
Suppose the dispensary law was so
administered that 1t eliminated the
profit feature entirely, is 1t not evil
dent that a dollar would buy great
deal more liquor than It does now and
II would therefore encourage consump-
ton and therefore drunkenness?
1t seems to me that you have reach
ed the conclusion In your own mind
that the dispensary law must be
damned II 1t does and the damned II
It don't" and your attitude toward 1t
Is made perfectly clear when you say,
"I do not admit that the dispensary
scheme has reduced drunkenness, en-
couraged temperance and decency and
increased good order" This in view
of the facts that have been time and
again printed, in view Of the opinion
of wellnigh every close observer In and
outside of the state, that the dispen-
sary Is a long ways ahead OF the IL
cense system as a temperance measure
solely, Is the most remarkable utter
ance I have ever heard fall from the
lips of a man who stands so high, and
deservedly in the estimation Of every
good man and woman in the state. II
you are content to stand by that utter
ance certainly am willing to leave
you occupying that attitude.
One word more and I am through.
In the Columbia State Of Aug. ~, L
find quoted from the Charlotte Obser-
yer the following: "The dispensary
discussion In South Carolina complex
even at its simplest. is much be-
fuddled Just now by the fact that two
pones seem to have played prominent