The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1905-08-03

pr0hlbltonlsts will not be accom-
plished in this way.
1t takes only "a hours to get a
jug from North Carolina, and in
stead Of being satisfied with a small
bottle of dispensary whiskey, a gal
lon or more will be ordered, and
what is not needed for "personal
use" will be dealt out "on the quiet"
to ready purchasers, thus adding to
the evil of intemperance the cognste
crime of illicit selling. This was
the case before the dispensary was
established and it is fair to assume
that the same condition will obtain
after it is abolished, perhaps in a
magnifed form.
In view of this state Of affairs the
question suggests itself, "what good
will be accomplished by the abolition
of the dlspensary, and who will en-,
force the law if the dispensary is
voted out, and if it is enforced
at all who will pay for its enforce
ment? The occasional visit of q dis
pensary constable will not be suf-
ficient and few people are willing
to incur the odlum Of playing the
"spy act" on their aeighbors.
Again, what will become of the
profits ("blood- money" if you willy,
arising from dispensary sales? Will
it ;crue to the school fund OF the
county or will it 90 to enrich the
distilleys and dealers of North Caro-
lima? How many thousand dollars
will the county lose per ann um in
this way, and how will the deficiency
be raised? If whiskey is such a
prolific source of crime, how will
the cost of our criminal courts be
paid after our people have ceased to
drink dispensary "booze" and SUBJ
stituted "Mountain dew" from
North Carolina? These are ques-
tions that should be of interest to
the taxpayers.
Here are some figures reproduced
from the last annual report of the
commissioner of internal revenue for
the fiscal year ending June 80, 1904.
These figures speak for themselves
and show how "prohibition pro-
hibits:"
"Retail liquor dealers in Kansas,
1852; wholesale liquor dealers, %;
brewers,2; retail dealers in malt liq.
uors, 335; wholesale dealers in malt
liquors, 108.
"In Maine the figures are: Re-
tail liquor dealers, 43O; wholesale
liquor dealers, 5; brewers, 8; retail
dealers in malt liquors, 558; whole
sale dealers in malt liquors, %.
"Now, in neither of these states
can liquor be soli as beverage, un-
der the law.
In South Carolina the figures are:
"Retail liquor dealers, 512; whole
sale liquor dealers, Z; brewers, l; re-
tail dealers in malt liquors, 55;
wholesale dealers in malt liquors, 9.
Of course, in South Carolina
there are large number of beer
privileges, and all dispensers take
out United States licences. These
have to be deducted from these fig.
ures to show how many blind tigers
we have in this State.
They have prohibitory laws in
Kansas and Maine, but judging from
the above figures they don't have
prohibition. Poor old South Caro-
lima, with that horrible incubus, the
dispensary, saddled on her, is to be
congratulated on not playing the
bowling farce presented by these
prohibition States.
The objection urged by many
against applying dispensary profits
("blood-money'') to the cause of ed
ucation is anything but rational.
There is no moral nor sane reason
why this mony should not be applied
to good cause. If 1t is true that
two equal opposing forces produce q
neutral effect, then it logically fol-
lows that the use of the dispensary
profit 10 the cause of education will re
suit in an educated sentiment against
the evils of in5emperance, a senti-
ment which will eventually crush
H. l:,-.,x o,4 of o~,,konoo ,n5