The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1906-02-16
Bill Passed to a Third Reading
in the House.
HOW MEMBERS VOTED
Under the Bill Charleston Can Issue
Liquor Licenses and the Other
"a Counties In the State Would
Have to Accept Prohibl-
ton or EstabI' sh Dis
pensarles.

pensarles.
DThe Morgan local option bill, which
abolishes the State dispensary and
creates county dispensaries or prOhi-
bition, according to how each county
votes, except in Charleston, where
they can Issue liquor liccnses, estab.
lish ~dispensaries or adopt prohibition,
passed its second reading In the
House OF Representatives on Tuesday
Of last week by the sams vote Ii
passed it's first reading week before
last. The bill passed it's third read.
Ing on Wednesday and was sont 10
the Senate. Snould 1T pass that body
and receive the governors approval 1t
will become o law at oncs, unleas Ii is
attacked in the courts, which 1; prob
able, as some good lawyers hold shat
the provision in the bill, giving Ct,ar-
lesion the right to issue licenses
makes the bill unconstitutional.
There were efforts made to kill the
bill, then to amend 1t, but Mr.. Sand
ers, who was the fl Dor manager, kepb
the bill intact, and NJ. Whalay, to
getber with the other Mtmbars Of
the Charleston delegation, kept the
Charleston license clause iutact, al,
though there was y tiprcc "onylaugnt
on the license clauaa. 1t wa expecsed
that there should be % fight on tAe
bill going through. Col. u. o. Her.
bert, Of ~Orangeburg, took up the
Mzaght against the bill. He stated
plainly that he was opposed to Char.
lesion having high license and then
went On to sympath'z q, with Charles.
ton wanting something d # trent from
the other counties. Col. HGrbgrt con.
tended that this was wr0fg IN princi
pie as we'll as unconstitutional. He
protested against the passage OF bhis
bill. 1t has been stated that under
this bill as 1t now stands general pro
ni~Di5tonToaa 10 had: -Thsseig aamie@
take. If the Prohibitionists believe
this, they are being dcluded. Tais
bill, this thing Of threads and patches.
will not secure prohibition. Under
this bill counties having ~djgpensarieG
Will have to pay 10 per conf to the
State, whereas Charleston, having
high license, will DO exempted from
paying anything to the State. Col.
Herbert said this matter CT county
dispensarieS won't do. L. WON'T do at
all. He insisted that 1t wa all wrong.
Every d~lspensary in operation to-day
under this bill became a county dis
pensary. Simply changing the name
did no good lie voted fer probibi.
tion because he thought anything
better than the NJ ,rgan bill. This
Morgan bill would bring Il lot OF fes.
tering sores all over the State.
Capt, Hanoi said this was not the
experience Of Georgia and North Caro-
lima.
Col. Herbert said The bill was abso.
lutely without restrictions. The coun
ty boards could tuy at any old price,
any old liquor, and plodge the credit
OF the county Without Imitation. II
this bill be passed ahe State simply
multiplies by 35 or 40 times the op
portunities for stealing. The people
ot1 not seem to appreciate the seri-
ousress OF county dlspensaries. The
y committee bill regulates the purchase
OF lIQlor. In this bill there are no
restrictions OF the county board. The
bill, he thought, was Dir. City in con.
flics with the Constitution. He urged
that the Constitution was written in
the disjunctive, and nev'r contem-
plated county adoption. There is no
local option in the Constitution, and
y he did not think there had ever been
= any argument against county adOp
tiOn.
Capt. Hamel said the county dis.
pensaries were simply the lesser OF
the evils, and the county dispensarles
would certainly get rid Of the State
dispensary.
Mr.. OTIS pointed out that the credit
OF the Counties C )uld only be used for
the first purchase, audonly the first.
Col Herbert iuhist d that the IL
ty diapensaricS were Unconstitutional,
and could not be legalizad.
Mr.. Hemphill took q turn at Col.
Herbert, aud showed him some OF the
wagon ways In the d~ispensary bill.
Mr.. Hamel said that II the dlspen
sary sdv>cttes had gone with the
Prohibitionists the lie nse question
would never have been an issue. He
related how the Prohibitionists In bne
Constitutional Convention aided the
dispensary advocates, and made 1T
possible to have a license system. The
ProhibitioniStS in that Convention
fought against licenses, and the dis
pensary advocates forced The license
system into the Constitution. The
ProhibitioniSts were simply trying to
: get the best they could AMI that WaA
why they favored the Morgan bill.
Mr.. Sanders then look bio lOor and
argued THAT tDcra WIS nothing in the
world IN Col. Harhert's position. H.
said there was nothing in the obi sc-
lions made, and that Charleston
would have TO pay les same proper.
tion to the State. The Constitution
was absolutely plain that county dis
pensaries were legal. Tho Constltu.
tion ever permits municipal c ntrol
and 1t plainly provides for county
adoption.
The debate was warm and The
State says Col. Herbert roasted" the
bill severely and made q number o.
thoughtful points NJ ttnst 1t.
Mr.. Pollock, Who w.a opposed tt
the bill, wanted to speak, but Mr.
Sanders, who had the bin In charge
applied the gag law by calling the
previous question. Mr.. Pollock 80 .
ted on his right to be heard but friends
( the bill did not want to have II