The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1905-12-20
The Item Versus Noisy Nonsense.

The Item Versus Noisy Nonsense.
The Sumter Item thus enters the list
of those seeking knowledge:
We would like to- know whether the
most noisy advocates of the plan to
vote out the dispensaries in all coun
ties. except Richland and Charleston,
would line up for absolute prohioi-
ton throughout the State. We be-
lieye absolute prohibition would be
good thing, but we consider it i'm
practicable and unobtainable, but if
the State is to start on career Of
rainbow chasing along this line We are
willing to give il a trial, provided
there are to be no exceptions of coun-
ties or communities. If prohibition is
good for one county it is good for all.
Our contemporary might have been
/ a bit more communicative. The moi
sy advocates of a plan for permitting
4
gage in the liquor business have kept
very quiet hereabout The definite 10
cation of these pestiferous little buz-
zers by The Item would be interest
ling. It's keenness Of hearing and ac-
curacy of deduction render it's judg
nent on this subject of peculiar in
terest
Without, however, being furnished
the names of the noisy culprits we
condemn their plan as outlined by The
item. Likewise we discountenance
rainbow chasing 1t is disappoint-
ing.
| as The Item so wisely arrays itfe elf
against the policy it attributes to der
tain noisy persons, we hope it will
endorse The States plan, which is
Democratic and practical, promising
the greatest measure of immunity
from lawlessness. The State is not an
advocate of prohibition and it is sin
cerely and earnestly opposed to the
dispensary system which has imp1i-
Gated South Carolina in its disgrace.
We believe the system Of State mo-
nopoly of this corrupting business
should be wiped out and that then the
people in each and every county in
South Carolina should determine for
themselves, under the Democratic
principle Of local self-government.
what disposition to make of the prob
lem. Under the constitution they may
have prohibition, high license (some-
thing like the present county dispen-
sary owned and conducted by indi-
wduals) or county dispensaries, which
would give counties entire control Of
dispensaries. Whatever policies the
counties adopted, the State Of South
Carolina would be rid Of the miserable
business. She would cease to be
barmaid.
The Sumter Item declares that 'if
prohibition is good for one county it
is good for ALL" And we agree with
our contemporary; there is no ques-
ton that without drunkenness the
world would be much better place
and the same may be said of many
other excesses. But it does not stand
that if a prohibition law is good for
one county it is good for all. 1t is good
for the county where the public senti-
ment compels its enforcement to a
reasonable degree; but the law is in
furious in that community where its
violation is fragrant There is not only
does not restrict the use Of intoXicants,
bu through the open disregard Of one
law, brings all other laws into COM
parative disrepute. For these several
reasons local option is favored by
lovers Of law and good government,
for it stands to reason that the ma
jority, having determined upon a pol
icy, the majority favors and will give
its influence to the enforcement Of
that policy.
no law is a good law that encour-
ages violation and that is not support
ed by public sentiment, and to force,
by a blanket measure, a law upon the
whole State that would be utterly re-
pugnant-to some counties would be
naisgovernment. It would bread Grim
inais.-The State.
hester's Weekly Cotton Report.