Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1905-09-06

is in reality the goose that lays the
golden egg. And l repeat, any re-
strictive scheme that tends TO make
an immoral traffic reputable and
popular is vicious and dangerous
scheme.
"Do men gather grapes of thorns
or figs of thistles ?"
Geo. b. Cromer.
Newberry, August 16, 1905.
Senator TiIlman Replies to Or. Cromer.
Following is the reply of Senator
Tillman to DR.. Cromer's letter:
Hon. Geo. B. Cromer-Dear Sir {:
l was absent from the State few
days after the Anderson meeting,
and since my return home Sunday l
have been quite unwell, hence delay
in answering your "rejoinder," which
appeared in the newspapers of August
18th.
have read what what you say
carefully, and with all due respect it
seems to me you are begging the
question. ! quoted Pope's couplet
from memory and it is lucky that !
misquoted it, else you would have
had little to reply to, but 1 cannot
agree with you that "I missed" either
the "sense or the spirit"
l charged existing conditions in
dispensary matters TO mal-adminis.
tration and to legislation in changing
the law and depended upon the last
line of the quotation to sustain my
contention:
"That law which is best admins
tered is best"
OF course your quotation must be
verbatim and it is even stronger in
sustaining my argument than my
own recollection of the words, for if
"whatever form of government" an
autocraoy, limited monarchy or re-
public, is better than any other when
it is "best administered" it seems 10
me that you must be wrong in claim
ing elf there is inherent vice in the
law itself, efficient administration of
the law cannot cure it,"
We are not discussing that phase
at all. You class the dispensary sys-
TEN az inherently vicious as contra
distinguished with the licensed sale of
liquor, and the prohibition of its sale
at all. According to Pope, as you
quote him, "whatever" form the law
might take as among these three
would be best if administered best"
That is all / have ever contended. I
believe the dispensary system can be
better administered than can prohi-
bition, and l am opposed 70 any
form of license, high or low, because
it has the inherent vice of money
making by the individual, and this
to my mind is the most deadly poison
arising out of the whiskey traffic. I
hardly think you will deny that the
dispensary law fearlessly and hon
estly administered as it was originally
framed would be better than prohi-
bition not enforced.
However, it was not this part of
your rejoinder which gave me any
concern, because it almost answered
itself and only mention it Incl
dentally as am answering you.
The point which wish to press on
yonr attention and that. of those
who may be interested in our discus
sion of this question is the "lame
and impotent conclusion" at which
you arrive in your discussion of the
dispensary from legal standpoint.
You are lawyer and an able one,
while am only layman, but your
reading must have been limited OF
your reasoning powers at fault to
rest your case as you appear to do
on the claim that the prohibitionists
are sustained throughout in their
views by the decisions of the Su-
preme Court. You quote the de-
cision in the case of the State vs
Aiken, 42d S. c., p. 23l.
"That liquor in its nature is dan.