Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1905-07-28


In four counties the sale of lntoxi-
eating liquor is now prohibited by
law. In Marlboro and Greenwood. as
stated, prohibition has obtained for
years: In Greenwood from the estab-
Iishment of the county. Cherokee
led in the rebellion against the dis
pensary last fall, and the letter from
Gaffney declares that prohibition is
successful and satisfactory even be-
lyond the hopes of its advocates.
Pickens was the next to vote under
the Brice law and the correspondent
describes that prohibition there has
made marked improvement In social
conditions. This is specially note
worthy because the legality Of the
Pickens election is questioned and
is pending in the courts. Some lax
enforcement Of law might naturally
be expected while the courts de-
cision is in doubt.
In the following Is counties either
elections have been ordered, petitions
are In circulation or an active agi-
tation has begun for the abolition
of dispensaries under the Brice law:
Marion, Saluda, Newberry. Edgefeld.
Horny, Anderson. Chesterfield, Union
Colleton, York. Lancaster. Williams
burg, Oconee, Spartanburg, Florence.
Darlington. Lexington and Laurens.
In the first fourteen named 1t seems
that the chances Of success are dis
tinctly with the Prohibitionists In
such counties as Marion. Saluda.
Horny Anderson. Union, York, Lam
caster, Colleton and perhaps Spartan
burg, there seems little doubt that
the dispensary's days are numbered.
The advantage is with prohibition In
Florence, but the Darlington and
Lexington correspondents intimate
that those counties will sustain the
ldispensary. In Laurens the prohibi-
ton campaign is not aggressive or
organized, and the dispensary forces
include probably the most active
politicians.
In Clarendon. Dorchester and Fair
field no agitation has been started,
but sentiment Is believed to be
against the dispensary.
In the following twelve counties
there is no agitation and sentiment
| is undoubtedly for the dispensary In
most Of them: Georgetown. Sumter.
Beaufort, Richland, Charleston. Bam-
berg Orangeburg, Barnwell. Abbe-
Vile. Kershaw. Lee and Berkeley. In
the first nine Of these a distinct and
aggressive dispensary sentiment as
against prohibition appears to exist.
In this group a remarkable disap-
pearance of former factional align
ment Is noted. In 1892 only five
counties voted for Governor Shep-
pard, the Anti-Tillman candidate.
They were three coast counties.
ICharleston, Beaufort and George
town, and two interior counties,
Sumter and Richland. In these hve
counties prohibition sentiment scarce
| ly exists at all. Charleston and Rich-
land. the "city counties" it is true.
would certainly favor high license
system as against the dispensary. but
It Is equally certain that they prefer
the latter to prohibition. In the
days Of the Tillman agitation Sumter
was the single county without large
city and with a large Democratic vote
lin which Senator Tillman's faction
was defeated. The vote was close
and the lines were sharply drawn.
1t seems that II dispensary views
were colored now by the survival of
fractional spirit, Sumter would Illus
trate 1t. The correspondent points
out that the dispensary was forced
Iupon the county without it's consent
and the people regarded 1t as an
Outrageous imposition. Nevertheless
as the years have passed. opinion
has changed and Sumter regards the
dispensary as the best solution oi
the liquor question so far as its loca
Ioperation and results are considered
lIf the management Of the state dis'
lpensary were beyond criticism SUM