The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1905-11-16

''pass sentence. Now, really, We
hate to comply with our friends re-
quest, but on the other hand we
cannot be so disobllging as to re-
fuse, since it seems that he hasn't
the moral courage to come out and
confess his sliding. As to the
first part of the question, with all
his profession of total abstinence, We
fear that the editor of the Mail is
not prohibitionist. Our opinion
is based on the definition given by
the Standard dictionary, which we
regard as mlddling good authority,
though perhaps our friend would
say that it Is incorrect, or that he
could make up better one out of
his own head. We quote from the
Standard dictionary: "Prohibition-
| list, one who favors the prohibition by
law of the manufacture and sale Of
alcoholic liquors as beverages. "
Now, since the editor of the Mail
blatantly avows his allegiance to the
dispensary We do not see how he can
be prohibitionist. "Have you ever
been prohibitionist?" Well, we
should rather think our friend has
been one. In 1898, we are informed
that he was member of the con-
vention that nominated Mr. Joel E
Brunson for governor Oh straight
out prohibition platform. Either
he was true prohibitionist
then, or he was doing DR. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde stunt, and We have
too high an opinion of him to think
the latter. Ho" circumstances do
combine to change opinions. But
we would not say even in whisper
that our honorable and distinguished
friends advent INTO politics had
aught to do with his jumping from
the prohibition water wagon into
the dispensary band wagon; Yet he
twlts us with changing our opinion of
the Great Moral Institution. Sure
ly he must have lost sight of the de-
fective joints in his own armor.
But even now our contemporaries
attitude is as changeful as cham
eleon. First he is a prohibitionist
sat heart" but dispensaryite po-
litically; then las We showed last
week. he tavors law almost as
radically different from the dispen-
sary system as prohibition is; yet he
still whcops and hurrahs for the
dispensary and stigmatizes his for
mer friends and associates as "a few
misguided prohibitionists." He re-
minds us of man who bitches his
horses to opposite ends of a cart and
enters them in speed competition.
The Mail asks if We are or ever
have been a prohibitionist. So far
as voting against the sale of liquor
is concerned we have doue so every
time we had the opportunity. We re-
gret to say that We are not a tee.
totaler, and We cannot qualify for
the high state of moral excellence
that the immaculate editor of the
Mail claims for himself. 70 show
our good faith in this matter, how
ever, we pledge our word of honor
that If the dispensary be voted out
we will not patronize blind tiger
nor order liquor and will do all in
our power to help enforce d prohl-
bition law. Of course We can never
hope to attain to the exalted stand
ard of righteousness that our friend
maintains, but If we can't be like
him in that respect, we'll be as like
him as we can.
Question 8: "Under the dispen-
sary law don't you know that the
sale of liquor is increasing in vol
ume from year to year? How then
can you say that the law is restric-
tive?
With cheerful uibanity our con-
temporary admits that the sale OF
liquor is increasing every year, yet
with blind devotion he clings to his
fetch and AYERS that the dispenSary
law is restrictive because iC reads
that way. Well let that pass with
out further comment.
Question 4: "Would you accept
position as dispenser or on county
or State board at any salary; if not
why not?" He answers, no; because
he has religious scruples. "But,"
he gravely adds, "there are men who