The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1905-09-01
CROMER in REPLY.
A Reioinder to Senator Tillman's
2efsnoe Of tho Dispsnsary.

Tefenos Of tho Dispsnsary.
Tho DocsoE D:scassss HIS Difoxonooa
With the Senator in q CaIm,
Dispassionato Manner.
Hon. b. r.. TillmAn.
Dear Sir; 1t was not to be expeote q
that you would adopt my view OF the
principles underlying the ~dispensary
law, but I desifo TO assure you that
appreciate the spirit Of your letter
published In the papers this morning.
A final word In reply is required by
one or two passages in your letter.
While my own conduct is Of small
moment and / have no dssiye to bring
my personality into tho discussion, let
me assure you, In passing, that my
moral support has bsen given to the
enforcement Of the %dispensarY law.
When Gov. Hayward expressed q de.
termination to enforce the law in
Charleston, / wrote him o letter OF
warm Communications; not because l
VAS In sympathy with the dispensary
law, but because ] am opposed to law
lessness and in favor Of fostering re-
speot for duly constituted authority.
But | think you miss both tho spirit
and the letter Of Pope's we'll known
couplet. He aid not say:
"About form Of law let fools CON
tc>t.
That law which is best administered
Is BEST"
lie was not speaking Of legislative
enactments but Of governments and
creeds as thoy affect human welfare,
and he said:
"For forms fof government let fools
whate'er Is best administered is
BEST,
Ii there Is inherent vice In the law
itself, efficient administration of tho
law cannot cure it.
Referring to the decision Of the
supreme court, which you say l
quote with great unction," you sly,
The prohibitionists In general and
you, my dear doctor, are thoroughly
imbued with the belief that liquor
drinking is dangerous to the morals,
good order, health and safety of the
people," etc. l am not a fanatic on
the subject, though you put me In a
class with the "unco guild and rigid
righteous who think 1t a sin TO drink
liquor. Az you say that you have not
that decision before you, l taks the
liberty Of supplsing a full quotation
In order that IL may be seen that |
have argued the matter not as a IA.
natic but from the point Of view of
tho supreme court.
You will recall that at the Novem.
Der torn, 1898, the supreme court
decided that the dispensary law was
unconstitutional. Mr.. Justice Mo.
Gowan concurrirg with Mr.. Chief
Justice McIver In the decision, and
MIR. Justice Pope dissenting. TIE
next year, 1894, Mr.. Justice Gary
having succeeded Mr.. Justice Nc.
Gowan Oh the supreme bench, the
court decided that the law was cou:
stitutional, MI. Justice Pope and Mr..
Justice Gary conourring, and MIR.
Chief Justice McIver dissenting. j
am frank enough to say that If l were
hunting something that l could
quote with unctlon," l could find 1t
In the dissenting opinion.
The following paragraph, found In
State Vs. Aiken, 42 S. o., page 231,
contains the ground work Of the de.
cision u%pholding the oLssitutionality
Of the law:
Before proceeding to a considera.
tion OF the specific objections urged
against the consSitutiOnallty Of the
act (of 1899 we desire to state at the
outset that, In our opinion, the fol.
lowing propositions embody the prin.
ciples governing this oSsa:
"Q That liquor, In It's nature, is
dangerous TO the morals, good order,
health and safety Of the people, and
is not to be placed on the same foot
ing with the ordinary commodities OF
life, such as corn, wheat, cotton, to.
bacco, potatoes, etc.
"(2) That the State, under It's pc.
lice power, BAL itself assume entire
control and management Of those
subjects, such az liqucr, that are dan.
gerous to the peace, good order, health
morals and welfare Of the people,
even when trade Is one Of the Incl.
dents OF such entire control and man
agement on the part OF the State.
'(3) That the act Of 1893 Is a 20.
lice measure. We are frank to say
that II wa are wrong as to either OF
these propositions, the act should be
declared unconstitutional. We will
now cite authorities to sustain these
propositions"
Note, then, that the language In
which you define the attitude Of the
prohibltionists 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 20 re.
gard the question; and from that
point Of view the State may take CON
troll Of the traffic to police 1t but not
to profit by 1t. And If the view OF
Hugh Farley, chivalrous spirit, and
others who were opposed to the profit
feature had been adopted, the result
might have been different. | admit
that 1T Ia wise to "hobble the devil"
whom you arc powerless effectualy to
chain; but having hobbled the devil, |
protest that 1t Is not right to make
him yoke follow with the spirit OF
progress In our schools and open the
way for our children to embrace him
as an angel Of light.
Returning to my historical parallel,
| am not inclined to press the lessons
OF the prohibition vote OF 1892 unduly.
After reminding me that $4,000 did
not vote In that elecbion, which you