The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-08-22
DIR. CROMER REJOINS.
He Cites South Carolina Supreme
Court AS To Whiskey.

Sir: 1t was not to be expected tllae
you would adopt my view Of the
principles underlying the dispensary
law, but | desire to assure you that I
appreciate the spirit Of your letter,
publish ed in the papers OF this morn
ing A 'inal word in reply is required
by one or two passages in your let
ter.
While my own conduct is OF small
moment and I have no desire to
bring NY personality into the dis
cussion, let me assure you, in pass
ing, that my moral support has been
given to the enforcement of the dis
pensary law. When Governor Hey
ward expressed a determination to
enforce the law in Charleston |
wrote him a letter of warm commen-
dation; not because | was in sympa-
thy with the dispensary law, but be-
cause I am opposed to lawlessness
and in favor of fostering respect for
duly constituted authority. But I
think you miss both the spirit and the
letter of Pope's we'll known couplet.
He did not say:
"About forms of law let fools con-
test,
That law which is best administer
ed is best"
He was not speaking of legislative
eractments, but of governments and
creeds as they effect human welfare,
and he said:
For forms of government let fools
contest,
Whate'er is best administered is
best"
If there is inherent vice in the law
itself, efficient administration of the
law cannot cure it.
Referring to the decision of the
supreme court, which you say |
"quote with great unction," you say:
"1he prohibitionists in general and
you, my dear doctor, are Thoroughly
imbued with the belief that liquor
drinking is dangerous to the morals,
good order. health and safety of the
people," etc. I am not fanatic on
the subject, though you put me n a
class with the 'unco guild and rigid
righteous who think it is sin to
drink liquor. AS you say that you
have not that decision before you, |
take the liberty OF supplying full
quotation in order that it may be
seen that I have argued the matter,
not as fanatic, but from the point
of view Of the supreme court.
You will recall that at the Novem-
Der term, 1893, in 1894 the supreme
court decided that the dispensary law
was unconstitutional, Mr.. Justice Nc
Gowan concurring with Mr. Chief
Justice McIver in the decision, and
DR.. Justice Pope dissenting. The
same year, 1894, Mr.. Justice Gary
having succeeded Mr.. Justice Nc
Gowan on the supreme bench, the
court decided that the law was un-
constitutional, Mr.. Justice Pope and
Mr. Justice Gary concurring, and Mr..
Chief Justice McIver discerning l
am frank enough to say that if I
were hunting something that | could
"quote with unction." I could find it
in the dissenting opinion.
The following paragl-ph, found in
State VS.. Aiken, 42 S. c., page 231,
contains the groundwork Of the de-
cision upholding the constitutionality
Of the law:
Before proceeding to considera
ton of the specific objections urged
against the constitutionality of the
Act (of 1889 we desire to state at
the outset that in our opinion the fol-
lowing propositions embody the prin-
ciples governing this case:
"1st. That liquor, in its nature, is
dangerous to the morals, good order,
health and safety OF the people, and
is not to be placed on the same foot
ing with the ordinary commodities OF
LIE such as corn wheat cotton to-