The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-06-16
MR.. A. c. JONES REPLIES.
To Senator Blease-He Gives His
Views on the Question Of Dis
pensary.
TO the Editor Of the Herald &, News

I desire to correct some mistakes
that Senator Blease made in his COM
munication favoring the dispensary
in Tuesdays paper. He says: "It
has been charged frequently that at
the election in 1892 the people of
South Carolina voted for prohibition
and that the prohibitionists asked
for a fish and were given a serpent"
and then he adds that, This state
ment is not true. At the session Of
of the legislature OF 1892 the prohi-
bitionists made a strong fight for the
Childs prohibition bill which was
passed by a good safe majority
through the house Of representatives,
when it reached the senate Ex-Gov-
ernor Evans then senator, moved to
strike out the Childs bill and insert
the dispensary law as an amendment.
That was passed by the senate and
returned to the house OF representa-
tives. The prohibition leaders, nota-
bly, Mr.. S. A. Nettles, who is now a
Methodist minister and who had been
making a strenuous fight for the
Childs bill arose in his seat and
begged the prohibition members
whose leader he was to vote for the
senate amendment which was the
dispensary law"
Senator Blease is either not famil-
lar with the facts or he has forgotten
the history of prohibition in this
state just prior 70 and at the time the
dispensary law was passed. Let me
refresh his memory. The prohibition
sentiment in the state before 1892
had grown so strong that the leaders
of the democratic party were forced
to recognize it and if possible pre-
vent it being made political issue
in the election Of state and county
officers and in order to satisfy the
prohibition democrats, they agreed
that they would have placed at every
voting precinct in the state box and
if a majority voting in that box voted
for prohibition they would enact a
state prohibition law. The prohibi-
ton democrats carried the state by
more than ten thousand majority
and when the general assembly met
the house passed the Childs prohibi-
ton bill by a good majority but when
the bill reached the senate the leaders
of the party were not willing to al
low it to pass the senate and sent a
gentleman over to Athens, Ga, to
find out the provisions OF the law that
had been in force there for some time
to regulate and control the sale Of
Intoxicating liquors and from that
law. The dispensary law was made
up and presented to the senate as an
amendment to the house Chi1ds' pro-
hibition bill and to influence some Of
the senators to vote for it, who felt
hat they were bound to vote for pro-
hibition, on account Of the pledge
made by the democratic leaders to
the prohibitionists, they told these
senators that those who were elected
before the vote was taken were not
bound by that vote, and as this was
an administration measure they
should stand by the administration
and after securing its passage by the
senate it was returned to the house
for concurrence and the prohibition
lists were told, that they must accept
this or nothing. So it was not a
question OF choice but either to ac-
cept the dispensary law with the
claim Of the senators who presented
it that It was intended as a step
toward prohibition or to reject it
and leave the bar-rooms open. The
prohibitionists threw the response
bility Of making the law a step
towards prohibition upon the admin
istration and it gradually developed
that it was never intended to promote
temperance but to defeat prohibition,
and to be used in making money.
This is its history and the prohibi-
tionsts are in no way responsible for