Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1905-10-18
TILLMAn's ARG UMEMrs ANALyzEo.
[Continued from page 3. !

must be condemned. 1t corrupts
the officers who attempt its execu-
Iion, and must continue to do so be.
cause men strong enough to resist
its temptations cannot be induced to
assume it's management. 1T must,
therefore, continue to be condemned.
1t cannot be redeemed. The people
see this and are voting it out. Let
the good work go on!
Senator Tillman's second argu-
ment-apparontly intended both in
favor of the dispeDsary and against
prohibition--iS tAat men will drink
and, therefore, liquor will be sold
somehow. That it is best to have it
done legally and that the dispensary
is the best legal scheme for control
ing its sale. That prohibition will
not prohibit and will, therefore, fos.
Ter The illegal sale.
But does the dispensavy control
the sale? Does not the blind tiger
ipurish in dispensary towns as else
where? Have not recent exposures
shown that almost every dispensary
investigated is itself, if not a blind
tiger, mere fcrocious beast, one
that not only glareS its defiant eyes
N the face of the law, but actually
Seizos the law and uses it to make
merchandise for its own profit, not
Of liquor alone, but of bottles and
boxes and cases and presents of
every description. The illegal sale,
not of whiskey alone, but of all other
available commodities accessory to
the execution of the law is actually
being carried on by the sworn officers
OF the legal system and the money
put in their own pockets. Not only
so, bu, in some instances, has it not
been shown, that these same officers
were in alliance with the ordinary
blind tiger assisting him and being
assisted in their own private and
illegal schemes by him? Could con-
fusion be worse confounded? Is
chere any danger that prohibition
could beat this? Ia it beatable /?
And the worst of it is that this
doubly disgraceful spectacle must
continue as long as the dispensary
Lives for, as we have seen, officers of
sufficient moral strength to prevent
it cannot be put in charge of the
system.
Again, can the contention that the
legalized sale is preferable to the ille-
gal sale which would go on under
prohibition be maintained, even if
the legal sale were possible without
any form of the illegal? This is
Senator Tillman's contention. If his
principle is sound it must stand the
test of generalization. Would the
Senator he willing to generallze it?
Would he contend that because the
acts of theft, murder and rape, for
example, will be committed illegally,
IN the face of the prohibitory laws
now in force against them, therefore
1t would be better to legalize these
acts? This is the principle. If sound
Why not apply it in all cases u? These
are all recognized crimes-liquor sell
ing undoubtedly the most hurtful to
society. Why favor it supremely ?
Each of the Ten Commandments is
broken every day. Should we, there
fore, annul them and legalize ethi-
cally the acts which they prohibit ?
Would Senator Til'man agree to
lhls? Yet obviously his principle
demands it. Everybody knows that
no prohibltory law, ethical or legis-
ative, prohibits absolutely No one
pretcnds that it does, ever did, or
ever will. But does that fact Justify
rhe repeal OF all prohibitory laws
and the lcgalizing of all prohibited
crimes? Ii not, then, in the name
of common sense, why select the
sale Of Iiqnor-,hc one admittedly
most productive of all other forms {.
vice and cvil.--as the one that shou'
Dc lcgalizcd?