The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1905-08-29

cuape maintains the contrary, the
supreme court Of the United States.
with the law before it, sustained it
notwithstanding this feature; YET
merely because you feel that the prof.
it feature is an inherent vice OF the
dispensary law and its legality. l
must ask how can you seriously argue
such a point, and how can you lend
your great Influence and intellect to
mislead those who are ignorant?
You brush aside as wholly unwor-
thy of consideration the statistics
which I advanced to show that pro-
i1ibi:ion does not prohibit, and that
drunkenness is not as great in Char
lesion, with all its blind tigers, as II
is in prohibition cities of like size.
You dismiss these with a wave OF
the hand because they make the peo-
pie "crazy," and then assert most pos
itively that the supreme court said
"Stifle this vampire that threatens
the health and life Of the community"
While it is an undisputable propo-
sition that the supreme court has
never said anything of the kind and
only used the language which you
quoted as the justification of the legis'
lature jor enacting the dispensary law,
to better control and minimize the
evils inseparable from liquor. 1t was
merely a strongly worded declara-
ton that the Jaw was an exercise OF
the police power.
Suppose the dispensary law was Sc
administered that it eliminated the
profit feature entirely, is it not evident
that dollar would buy great dea'
more liquor than it does now and il
would therefore encourage consump-
ton and therefore drunkenness?
1t seems to ME that you have reach
ed the conclusion in your own mind
that the dispensary law must be
damned if it does and be damned if
it DON'T" and your attitude towards
it is made perfectly clear when you
say, Il do not admit that the dispen-
sary scheme has reduced drunkenness,
encouraged temperance and decency
and increased good order" This, in
view of the facts that have been time
and again printed, in view Of the opin-
ion Of we'll nigh every close observer
in and out side of the state, that the
displensary is long ways ahead of
the license system as a temperance
measure solely, is the most remarkable
utterance I have ever heard fall from
th lips of man who stands SO high,
and deservedly, in the estimation Of
every good man and woman in the
state. If you are content to stand by
that utterance I certainly am willing
10 leave you occupying that attitude.
One word more and I am through.
In the Columbia State of August 22
I find quoted from the Charlotte OBJ
server the following: "The dispen-
sary discussion in South Carolina,
complex even at its simplest, is much
befuddled just now by the fact that
two Popes seem to have played promi-
nent parts in dispensary affairs. One
is the Hon. Y. J. Pope, at present
Chief Justice Of the stare, who once
handed down a dissenting opinion as
to the cons.itutionality OF the dispen-
sary law. He was all alone until the
legislature, upon the order Of Gov
ernor Ben Tillman, put Mr.. Justice
MCGOWAN off the supreme bench be-
cause he did not favor the dispensary
law and put on Mr.. Justice E. B. Gary,
because he did favor it. Then the dis
pensary law was declared constitu-
tional. Pope and Gary concurring,
MCGOWAN (McIver) dissenting" This
lie was first sent broadcast over this
state by those leading newspapers
which are now clamoring for the de-
struction OF the dispensary and which
are the main reliance of the prohibi-
Iionists, although they boldly declare
that they do not believe in it any more
than I do. This outrageous false