The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-09-01

Stase mas q right through itg own
onicefsT-in fact, IL It's primary dutv--
% ENFORCE Its police regulations. which
right inheres In goyernmentitself ana
's paramount toGay xighb ;nissrenS In
citizenship. But referring II INC
foregoing objection as matter OF fact
IL would not be as eficiently enforca9
by private individuals, because thara
would % tbs CONSTANT Compilation tn
make as large profit as possible.
But referring to the foregoing nh
jcction Chat the same results oonld
be accomplished by allowing private
individuals to carry on the tranr) as
q matter Of fact 1t would not be- as
efficiently anforced by private indi.
viduals because There would be the
constant temptation to make as large
profits as possible" Further on Jus.
oice Gary adds: 1.-THE d%ispensary act
itself Is an outRrowth of q dissatisfac.
tion on the part of the people with
the manner In which the police power
when delegated, was abused" 10y per-
hitting those who obtained the lie.
enses to make as much money as pos.
sible.)
Again 1 desire to direct your atten.
tion to the decision OF the supreme
court Of the United States in the case
of Vance Vs., w. A. Vandercook Co.,
ITO U. S., p. 447, in which the con.
stitutionality Of the diapensary law
was upheld by our court Of last resorts:
1T Is argued az the State law here
In question does not forbid but on the
contrary authorizes the sale of intoxi.
oHnts within the State, hence 1t Is
not a police law, therefore not enacted
In tho exercise OF the police power Of
che State and consequently does not
operate upon the sale of original pack
ages within the Ssate. But the pre-
mise upon which these argument rest
Is purely arbitrary and imaginary.
From the fact that the State law Per
mits the sale Of liquor subject to par.
ocular restrictions and only upon en-
umerated conditions it does not fol.
low that the law Is not q manifesto
sion Of the police power of the State.
The plain purpose of the act Of con.
gress having been to allow State re.
gulati0nS to operate upon the sale OF
original packages Of intoxicants DOM
Ing from other States, IL would do
stroy its obvious meaning to construe
1T as permitting the State laws to at
tach to and control the sale only in
case the States absolutely forbade sales
OF liquor and not to apply In case the
State determined to restrict or regu.
late the same"
How then, my dear sir, can you
seriously contend that 1.-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
or the United States with the law be.
Tore 1T sustained it, Notwithstanding
this feature, yet merely because you
feel thai tho profit feature is an in.
berent vice Of the dispensary law
which destroys its usefulness and It's
legality. l must ask, how can you
seriously argyle such a point, and how
can you lend your great influence and
intellect to mislead these who are
ignorantP
You brush aside az wholly unworthy
OF consideration the statistics which
l advanced to show that prohibition
does not prohibit, and that ,drunkcn.
ness is not as great in Charleston with
all It's blind tiQ era az 1t is In prohibi.
tion cities Of like sizo. You dismiss
these with o wave Of the hand, because
they may make the people dizzy and
then assert most positively that the
supreme court said, "Sbife this YAM.
pire that threatens the health and life
Of the community" While 1t Is an
tnGiaputa hla mr., nooitiop tbat tlo -,
preme court has ever said anything
of the kind and only used the language
which you quoted as the just tication
of the Legislature for enacting The dis.
pensary law, to better control and
minimize the evils ~inseparable from
liquor. 1t was merely a strongly
worded declaration that the law was
an exercise 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 a great
deal more liquor than 1t does now and
1t would therefore encourage consump.
tion and therefore drunkenness?
1t seems to me that you have
reached the conclusion in your own
mind that the diSpensary law must be
damned II 1t does and be damned If
1t DON'T" aud your attitude towards
1T Is made perfectly clear when you
say, Il do not admit that the dispen-
sary scneme has reduced drunkenness,
encouraged temperance and decency
and increased good order" This in
view OF the facts that have been time
and again printed, In view OF the opln.
ion OF wellnigh every close observer in
and outside Of the State, that the dis
pensary is g long ways ahead of the
license system as a temperance meas
ure solely is the nest remarkable
u~tterance | have i've heard fall from
TITS lips CT a man who stands so high,
and deserYedly, In the estimation Of
every good mar and woman In the
State. If you are content to stand
by that u%tterance L certainly am will.
ing TO leave you occupying that atti-
tude.
One word more and I am through.
In the Columbia State Of August % 1
find quoted from the Charlotte Ubser.
yer the following: THE dispcnsary
discussion in South Carolina. complex
even at Its simplest, is much beiud-
died just now by the fact that two
Popes seem to have played pyomtnent
parts In dlspensary affairs. One is the
Honorable Y. j. Pope, at present the
the chief Justice Of the State, who
once handed do wn q dissenting opin.
ion as TO the cOnssisutionality Of the
~dispensary law. He was all alone I'M.
til she legislature upon the orders OF