The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1905-08-30
CROMER IN REPLY.
A Reioinder to Senator Tillman'
Tofaroo ~ 4bo n;.o,o-,r-

a Rejoinder to Senator yillman's
Tefence Of the Dispensary.
The Doctor DISGUISE His Differences
With the Senator in a Cain,
Dispassionate Manner
Hen. B. R. Tillnan.
Dear Sir; Il was not to be e1pected
that you would adopt my view OF ene
principles underlying the dispersary
law, but desire to assure you that l
appreciate tie spirit OF your letter
published in the papers this morning.
a final word in reply Is required By
one or t1o passages in your letter.
While my Own conduct is OF small
moment and I have 70 dssi.e to bring
my personality into the discussion, lei
me assure you, In passing, that my
moral support has been given to the
enforcement OF the dispensarY law.
When Gov. Heywsrd expressed de-
termination to enforce the law in
Charleston, I wrote him letter OF
warm connendatioE; not b2cauSe /
was in sympathy with the dispensary
law, but because l ana opposed to law
leSsneSs and in favor ct fostering re-
spect for duly constituted authority.
But think you miss both the spirit
and the letter OF POpe's well known
couplet. He Sid net say:
"About form OF law let tools con-
te.5.
That law which is best administered
is best.
He was net spsaking OF legislative
enac.ments but Of govern ments and
creeds as they afecs human welfare,
and hs said:
"For FORMS sof government let fools
| contest,
Whate'er is best administered is
best,
II there is inherent vice in tie law
itself, efficient administration Of the
law cannot cure 1t.
Referring to the decision Of the
supreme court, which you say l
quote with great unction," you say,
THE prohtbitionists in general and
you, ny dear doctor, are thoroughly
inbue0 with the belief that liquor
drinking Is dangerous to the morals,
good order, health snd safety OF the
people," etc. 1 an not a fanatic on
the subject, though you put me in a
class with the ''unco guid and rigid
righteous" who think 1t q sin to drink
liquor. AS you say that you have not
that decision before you, take the
liberty CT SUPPLYING full quotation
in order that Ii may be seen that [
have argued the matter not as a t..
natic but from the point OF view OF
the supreme court.
You will recall that at the NoVem-
Der term, 1898, the supreme court
decided that the dispensary law was
unconstitutional. Mr.. Justice Nc
Gowan concurring with MI. Chief
Justice McIver in the decision, and
Mr.. Justice Pope dissenting. The
next year, 1894, Mr.. Justice Gary
having succeeded Mr. Justice Nc
Gowan on the supreme bench, the
court decided that the law was con.
Stitutional, Mr.. Justice Pope and Mr..
Justice Gary concurring, and Mr..
Chief Justice McIver dissenting. l
am frank enough to say that II were
hunting something that I could
quote with unction," could find 1t
in the dissenting opinion.
The following paragraph, found in
State vs.. Aiken, ~ S. g., page 23l,
contains the ground work Of the de-
cision upholding the coEssitutioaslity
of the law:
Before proceeding to considera.
tion OF the specific objections urged
against the cons5itutionality Of the
act Cot 1899 ne desire to state at the
outset that, in our opinion, the fcl-
lowing propositions enbody the prln-
ciples governing this case:
"(D That liquor, in its 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-
oacco, potatoes, etc.
"(2) That the State, under its po-
lice power, can itself assume entire
control and management OF those
subjects. such as liquor, 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 msn-
agement on the part OF the State.
"G) That the act Of 1893 Is po-
lice measure. We are frank to say
that il We 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
pronibi5ionists 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 to re-
gard the question; and from shat
point Of view the State may take ccl-
troll Of the traffic to police 1t but not
to profit by it. 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. I admit
that 1t is wise to ''hcbble the DEVIL"
whom you ar: powerless effectually to
chaic; but having hobbled the devil, !
protest that it is not right to make
him yoke fellow with the spirit OF
nrooresc in our sch0olS and OMEN the