Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1906-06-20


law go haIRg y!olatsd lsss cn,nu
my way, Evidently ha5 knew
khnkthe law waa AagFa1iiy Viola.
ted and saW the necessity @fnp or.
ganiaatioa and concert 0fss:aetion.s
You are unhappy in your illustra-
tion in the matter Of the 5burnings
in our town a few years ago. 1t
only goes to establish the one and
only contention IN my artRle, viz:
Ihatit is the frequent dagrant VII
oIarion of law that CAUSES people to
unite as independent bodies to en-
force law and suppress its viola
ton. In the arst place tifere-is is no
analogy between the Prohibition
law and the law against incendi-
arism, murder, theft, asI shallla-
ter undertake to show, and al.
though it is common argumentto
place them on a parity;..it Is none
the less fallacious. But. let us, as
In logic you are bound. ito do, place
them on the same footing. Was it
one, was it two, was. it three fires.
that so aroused our people as to
cause them to employ. night watch
men, detectives, ami fifially con.
vict the guilty partY? No. It was
.swhen buildings wbfe being re-
peatedly burned" when there was
such q continuous violation of the
law as to arouse Indignation and
determined action. But even in
that case, to the extent that it did
not suppress its violation, it was
failure. Ouce admit thata law is
being continuously violated and
not enforced, then in practical eff
feet that laWis failure. Have we
had the practical prohibition in
our town and county to the extent
you claim {? lfs6, Why the necessity
10 eend for an officer Of the law to
suppress it's 81 IL? MIR. Ogg, the law
officer alluded 't0i:astated to me and
[ have his consent 60 quote him,
shat when first came 10 Edge
field 1t was the -rottenest town 1
ever saw" having reference of
cou.se to the sale of whiskey. The
prohibition law had been i'm onera-
tion some time before he came
here. / have it.: from the lima nf
citizen after citizen that. in Their
communities, 'Whiskey ia soIa nr
has been sold in such quantities AZ
even to delnsiralize labor Rnt
you said to mesthat 80 far AZ blind
tigers were concerned, conditions
were equally as bad under the Dis.
pensary law Granted. If blind
tigers flooded our county under the
Dispensary slaW, and conditions
now, 80 lar us the blind tigers are
concerned, are similar to those
when the Dispensarv law obtained.
is not this IN admission that the
prohibition law hu- been n f,ilure
ut least III 1l,c1roun,r.? Allow me
to quote Whit Editor Carson says
in the last issue Ut his paper: An
0rgan;zAtinB to enforce .the prn.
hibitnty TEXTURES of III" Disp4nsary
law is ar ,Ack nnwl, dgment of an
unsa,istactlry s'atr nf yffairs."
Exactly the suime iiea expressed,
only in different words. YOU vii.
hardly accuse him of trying to mis-.
rerrestpt:rnnditions in ourc llnty.
Can any~aiher reasonable cnnstr.lc.
ton be- plare,l on the words run.
satisfactorily state of affairs" other
,han ttlaai the prohibition law has
not been. satisfactorily enforced.
The ulOIe. the violation of the law.
the more the credit for organizing
As to your comparison of the pro-.
hibition,la law with arson. In every
civilized Country in the world the
sale Of spiritu0us liquors has been
recognizsd as a legitimate subject
of commerce and trade, legalize;l
and accepted as such. Have you
ever heard Of country legalizing
the; crime of arson? Arson Ia
nahum in se, q wrong IN itself, the
sale of liquor on the contrary is.
malilm prohibitum, only made a:
wrong virtue of a statute. Recent
" we. had q vote In this county on.
The :uuGstton0f the legal or no. sale;
OF spErnu0ns liqu0r5.-W0 0lld nc ssbp,
possible to have a vote on the,ques.
ton as to whether orsnot we. should
.reDaal the law against arson, mur.
der. theft, or to legalize their com.
mission? Our people are divided
on the subject of the best policy To
pursue regarding spirituous liquors,
whether we shall sell them legally
.OrIW neither we shall have prohibi.
tive laws. Are they divided re-.
Tarding the laws against arson,
:theft, murder?
Let me give you what that great
juirist and christian gentleman,
Chief Justice NscIver, said in de.
iivuring his opinion in the case of
Mccullough vs.. Brown, Al s. C,
Reports page 239: Indeed the
awhole course of legislation, both
estate and Federal. demonstrates
Uthat the sale of intoxicating Ii
t'auOrs is legitimate subject of
and trade, for other
nwise it would be absolutely i'm.
apossibIe to vindicate the United
estates Internal Revenue law, and
"the very numerous Statutes which
shave been passed in this State
sever since the foundation of the
government, permitting the sale
.of Intoxicating liquors, under such
regulations as the law making
"power may have from time to
stime deemed necessary, either to
"secure q revenue from such traf-
af,c or 10 surround it with such re-,
.otrictions as have been thought
anecesssry or expedient to prevent
aeylis apt to grow out Of such
N IT.. COS, khoraforn &hnk IL.