The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-08-30


constant temptation 10 make as large
profits as possible" Further on JUS
sice Gary addS: "The dispensary act
itself is an outgrowth Of dissaeisfacr
tion on the part OF the people with
the manner in which the police power
when delegated, was abused" (oy per-
hitting those who obtained the lie
eases to make as much money as pos
sible.)
Again I desire to direct your atten-
ton to the decision OF the supreme
court CT the United States in the case
OF Vance vs., W. a. Vandercook Co..
ITO .. S., p. AT, in which tine con-
stitutionality OF tie dispensary Law
was upheld by our court OF last resort:
1T is argued as the State law here
In question does not forbid but on the
csrtrary authorizes the sale Of intoxi-
csnts within the State, hence 1t is
not a police law, therefore net enacted
In the exercise OF the police power OF
she State and consequently does not
operate upon the sale OF original pack.
ages within the State. 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 cs:s-.
ticular restrictions and only upon en-.
umsrated conditions it does Eot fol-
low that the law is not a manifesto
tion OF the police power OF the State.
The plain purpose OF the act OF con-
gress having been to allow State re-
gulations to operate upon the sale OF
original packages OF intoxicants com
ing from other States, it would de-
stroy its obvious meaning to construe
it as permitting the State laws to at
tach to apd control the sale only In
case the States absolutely forbade sales
OF liquor and not to apply In case the
S,ase determined to restrict or regu
lste the same"
bow then, my dear sir, can ycu
seriously contend that "the State may
take control OF the trafao to police it
but not to profit by It," Our own
court in the strongest language main
tains the contrary; the supreme court
OF the United States With the law be-
fore il sustained it, Notwithstanding
this feature, yet merely because you
feel tha5 the profit feature Is an in
herent vice Of the dispensary law
which destroys it's usefulness and its
legality. I must ask, how can YOU
seriously argue suca point, and hoT
can you lenu your great influence and
intellect to mislead those who are
ignorana?
You brush aside as wholly unworthy
Of consideration the statistics which
I advanced to show that prohibition
does not prohibit, and that druokel,'
ness Is not as great in Charleston with
all it's blind tigers as it is In prohibi.
tion cities OF like size. You dismiss
these with wave Of the hand, because
they may make toe psople dizz7 and
then assert most positively that the
supreme court said, "Sbife this YAM.
pire that threa tens the health aud life
Of the community" While it Is an
indisputable proposition that the su-
preme court has never said anything
OF the kind and only used the language
which you quoted as the justification
Of the legislature for enac5ing the dis
pensary law, to better control and
minimize the evils inseparabls from
liquor. 1t was merely a strongly
worded declaration that the law was
an exercise OF tne police power.
Suppose the dis2ensary law was so
aimi:- istered tnat it eliminated the
profit feature entirely, is it not eVi.
dent that dollar would buy a great
deal more liquor than it does low and
it would therefore encourage consump
tion and therefore drunkenness?
It seems to me that you have
reached the conclusion In POUR own
mind that the dispensary law must be
damned il 1t does and be damned If
it DON'T" and your attitude towards
it is made perfectly clear when you
say, II do not admit that the dispea-
sary scheme has reduced drunkenness,
encouraged temperance and decency
and increased good order" This in
view Of the facts that have been tiue
anl again printed, In view OF the opin-
ion OF wellnigh every close observer in
and outside OF the Ssate, that the dis
pensary is q long ways ahead OF the
license system as q temperance meas
ure solely is the mess remarkable
u5ter.nce I have ever heard fall from
the lips Of man who stands so high,
and deserYedly, in the estimation OF
every good man and woman in the
State. II you are content TO stand
by that utterance certainly am will.
ing to leave you occupying that atti-
tude.
One word more and am through.
In the Columbia State Of August % l
find quoted from the Charlotte Cbser-
yer the following: The dispensary
discussion In South Carolina, complex
even at its simplest: is much betud-
died just now by the 1acG GnaG tW0
Popes seem to have played prominent
parts in dlspenssry affairs. One is the
Honorable Y. J. Pope, at present the
the chief justice Of the State, who
once handed down dissenting optn
ion as to the constitutionality OF the
law. He was all alone un.
til the legislature upon the orders OF
Gov. Ben Tillman put Mr.. Justice
MCGOWAN off the supreme bench be-
cause he cid not favor the dispenSary
law and put on MI. Justice E. B.
Gary because he did favor 1t. Then
the dispensary law was declared con-
Pope and Gary concur.
ring, McIver dissenting" This lie
vas first sent broadcast over this
State by those leading newspapers
which are now clamoring for the de-
,tructIon OF the dispensary and which
ire the main reliance OF the prohibit
,ionists, although they boldly declare