The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-08-23

I1ne OF uOl less tlldll 91VV IlOI ulOlO
than $500 or both fine and imprison-
ment. in the discretion Of the court
for each offense. All alcoholic liquors
in this State, whether manufa ctured
within this State or elsewhere, not
having been tested ty the chemist
of the South Carolina college and
found to be pure and free from
poisonous, hurtful and deleterious
matters are hereby declared to be of
a detrimental character, and their
use and consumption are against the
morals and good health and safety
Of the State,' etc.
In the judgment of the legislature
which enacted the law as COM
promise, the dispensary system would
bring about the best results. You
and your friends make of this ques-
ton a religious issue while the sup
porters Of the dispensary law con-
slider it a political issue and the peo-
pie Of the State have six times by
overwhelming majorities sustained
our view. You and your friends have
time and time again presented your
ideasesand pressed them with vigor
and ability, but the voters have not
seen it as you did.
would be the last man to lower
the ideals of our schools. I would
be the last man to throw temptation
in the way of anyone young or old.
would be the last man to teach any
child that liquor is not dangerous;
but it lis the duty Of a stateman to
hobble the devil when he can't be
chained, so to speak, or it is his duty
to simply say he wants to see him
hobbled Or chained and then let him
loose? The dispensary law proper
ly administered does reduce druken-
ness. 1t does conduce to temperance
and good morals, and teaches men
the uses Of liquor rather than the
abuses of it. That the State board
of control is under suspicion Of cor
ruption with many things pointing to
the belief that the suspicion is we'll
grounded, that local dispensers have
been debauched, because Of the lax
administration or mal-administration
proves nothing. Pope long snce epit-
omized the whole subject in that
we'll known couplet:
"About forms of law, let fools con-
test,
THAT law which is best administered
best
Ana our not agreeing on the dis
pensary question and the liquor ques-
ton comes from the fundamental diff
ference of opinion as to how it is best
to police the liquor traffic. The pro-
hibitionists declare it sinful to drink
in moderation wine or whiskey, while
a large majority Of US cannot see any
in morals or religion for
any such contention. Everybody rec
ognizes the evils of drunkenness, and
how to minimize this or to prevent it,
is the whole question. You say pro-
hibit the sale. I say sell by bonded
officers under stringent regulations In
the day time only and have the law
enforced. The profit, which is an
incident, and not a purpose in this
sale, to go where it is most needed
that is, into the school fund Of the
State. It would make no difference
if it went into the general fund Of
the treasury and the school fund In
creased from other sources, but that
is subterfuge. No one drinks any
more or patronizes the dispensary be-
cause the profits go to the school
fund. 1 can not see any harm or sin
in obtaining revenue from traffic
that is irrepressible. The United
States supreme court protects each
citizen in the right to import for his
own use, and no law of the State can
prevent it. The poorer and more
ignorant classes who can not 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 Gov. Hoch, Of Kansas,
but you do not discuss or explain the
official statistics in regard to drink
ing and the payment Of the United
States internal revenue license by re-
tail dealers in that State. There ale
no saloons in South Carolina for the
young to see any more than there are
in Kansas. God forbid they should
ever return. Some of your colabor-
ers in this fight against the dispensary