The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-08-29
TyLLMAN ANSWERS CROMER.
Discusses The Legal Side OF the
Ouestion-Deprecates Return OF
Factionalism-Not Afraid to
Meet his Enemies.

CnlteQ States OeIIdtOl H. IN
has sent the following reply to d.
George B. Cromer's last letter:
The Hon. Geo. 3. Cromer, Dear
Sir. I was absent from the state
= few davs after the Anderson meet
77s and since my return home Sun
.z.v T have been quite unwell, hence
.5e1av in answering your "reJolnder'
which appeared in the newspapers o'
Ehe 18th.
have read what you say care
e,,11r and with all due respect 1t seems
80 me YOU are begging the question:
J opoted Pope's couplet from memory
.-,d : : lucky that I misquoted IT,
.s1ze vov would have had little to re-
-o1,- - but 7 cannot agree with you
+ba+ I "rnissed" either the sense
or the spirit"
CHARGED existing conditions IN dis
oensarv matters to mal-adrnlnlstra-
sion and to legislation in changing
the law, and depended upon the last
line OF my quotation to sustain my
contention: -.
THAT law which is best admins
1:ered. IS best"
.07 course your quotation must be
-zerba,in and it is even stronger IN
sustaining my argument than my own
recollection OF the words, for II Wha1-
aver form OF government" an auto
.r.cv limited monarchy or repuD-
So : better than any other when II
: best administered, it seems to me
+bar vou must be wrong in claiming
-<:;f there IS inherent vice in the Ia"
;+se1i. efficient administrator OF the
law can not cure it."
We are not discussing that Phase
-z+ all You class the dispensary Sys-
zen, as inherently vicious as contra
DISTINGUISHED with the licensed sale
~ 1;o1or, and the prohibition OF its
sale Al ALL According 10 Pope as
-or o,ote him, ''whatever" form the
law r7;g,. take as among these three
,ron1d be best if it is administered
hest" That is all I have ever con-
-+ande1 I believe the dispensary sys-
+eoo can be better administered than
ran prohibition, and I am opposed 10
:anv form of license, high OF low, Dc.
.-ause ;c has the ''inherent vice OF
money making iby the individual ana
this, to my mind, is THE most deaqly
poison arising out. OF the whlskey
traffic. I hardly think you Will de-
NV that the dispensary law, fearless
" and honestly administered as II
was originally framed, would be 0et-
Ter than prohibition not enforced.
However, it was not this part OF
your rejoinder which gave me any
concern, because it almost answered
:7tse!f. and I only mention It INCL
,7enrallv. as I am answering you
The point which wish to press on
>vou- attention. and that OF those VINO
,nev be interested in our discussion
- this question. IS the lame ana
;n,po1ene conclusion at which YOU ar
rive in your discussion OF the ai'-
oe1sarv from legal standpoint. You
area lawyer. and al able one, while
lam only layiran, but your readins
.-o1,s- have been limited or your rea-
:son1nc powers at fault TO rest your
case. as YOU appear 10 do, on the CLAIM
that the prohibitionists are sustained
:e:hroughovt in their views by the de-
..;sions Of the supreme court. Ioa
.orote 1he decision in the case OF the
State VS. Aiken, 42d S. C., page 231:
.That Iouor in its nature is danger
Gus 10 the morals, good order, heaith
and safety OF the people, etc, ana
then YOU say: Mote then the Ian
-guaee in which you define the attitude
of the prohibitionists is exactly the
language in which the supreme court
defines the attitude OF the law on the
subject That decision fixes the point
OF view from which the state is bound
10 regard the question; and from that
point Of view the state may take con-