The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-04-18
THE BEER DISPENSARIES.
What is Said in Columbia About the
Action of the State
Board.


board of control on the 24th instant,
says the Columbia correspondent Of
the News and Courier. 1t will be on
the beer dispensary question. Men
ton has already been made as to the
question being up before the state
board, but there is great deal that is
likely to be developed at this hearing.
The call on the beer dispensers to
show cause is rather unexpected and
was not exactly what we requested. 1t
was ra-her thought that positive Or
ders would be issued TO the beer dis
Dcnscrs as to how they were to en-
force the law. and to remove all posi-
bic misunderstanding as to how the
statutes were to be enforced.
For instance. it was thought that
the board would issue orders that beer
was not OF be sold on credit; that the
beer dispensers were not expected to
advertise or push their individual BUS
mess; that they were not to solicit
orders; that they were to make no de-
liveries after the legal hours for the
closing of dispensaries and that they
were to refuse the use of their places
for the drinking of beer. Perhaps the
beer dispensers think it BIZ hard on
them that when they pay a royalty
on their beer they should not be al
lowed to sell beer on their premises
when others sell it thus without any
license or leave OF the state, ir cer-
tain places.
It is contended that there is no
doubt that the state board has the
legal right to allow beer dispensers,
that is dispensaries at which beer
alone, is sold, but that the state board
has no legal right to allow beer to be
sold for consumption in the building
used for the sale of beer. The law, it
is held, prohibits the drinking of beer
or whiskey in dispensary or in
building in any way controlled or sub
iect to the same ownership and the
beer dispensers have no legal right to
sell the beer for consumption IN any
place controlled by them. The sug-
eestion is made that this regulation
would come under the control Of the
constabulary charged with the en-
forcement of the dispensary law, but
it can readily be seen that the consta-
blcs would not care to interfere with
the business of legally licensed and
authorized dispensers whether they al
lowed beer to be consumed on their
premises or not.
1t is fact that some OF the beer
dispensers absolutely follow the law
and do not allow beer to be drunk on
the premises under any pretext. The
dispensary law prohibits the congre-
ga.ion of people for the drinking OF
beer and that is such violation as it
is intended to prohibit.
The suggestion is made that the
motive t. large extent is to stop
beer dispensers from buying their
own supplies where they please and
force them to purchase through the
regular dispensary channels, and to
place the beer dispensers, as other
dispensers, on salary basis and not
allow them to conduct their business
in their own way and pay a royalty
on the amount OF beer sold.
The statement is also made that II
the royalty system is persisted in the
beer dispensaries will not be allowed
to stand, and there is no authority
Of law for such a system. IN reply
to this it is intimated that the dlspen-
sarv authorities simply want to get
this buying privilege in their hands
and that the beer dispensers can and
do buv as cheap as any one else. On
the other hand it is contended that
the state row has no proper check on
the beer dispensers and above all
that the royalty system is against
the law.
The announcement that every beer
d;eoeree- in the state had been sum-