The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-06-05

beer men were getting rebates. If sc
he demanded the same benefits and
inducements for himself. Herman
had written to Shaycr to inquire what
he must reply to Crews and Shayer
wrote that Crews should be kept in
ignorance of the fact that Slayer was
getting rebates. Crews yesterday ex.
planned this letter of his by saying
that he had heard that Shaver was
getting rebates and was not dividing
with him i'll accordance with theia'
contract, and he had written Herman
in general way so that the latter
would not know what particular in
formation Crews was referring to.
! He admitted that if Herman had
replied that Shayer was getting 25
cents per barrel rebate, he (Crews)
would have been glad to have received
his half of the rebate. But Herman
had denied that Shayer was getting
any rebate, and Crews soid that he
never knew any better until he saw
i'll the reports of the proceedings of
this investigation where Slayer had
been forced to admit it on the stand.
lie denied any knowledge of Shayer's
connection with the brewery as a
middleman in this State.
The State Chemist.
Mr. Lyon then put Oh the stand the
State chemist, DR.. w. B. Burncy, who
is also professor Of chemistry at the
South Carolina college. DR.. Burncy
evidently favorS the dispcnsary and
tried to give testimony as favorable
as possible. And when Mr. Lyon had
concluded and Mr.. w. Boyd Evans,
representing no client, but speaking
on account of his great interest in the
welfare of the people, asked n few
questions. DR.. Burney very readily
declared his belief that through the
dispensary South Carolina gets the
best whiskey in the country.
DR.. Burney readily answered all of
Mr.. Lyons questions, but he doubted
the propriety Of discussing this mat
ter in public and frequently COM
planned because the newspaper men
were making notes of what he was
saying.
Mr.. Lyon showed that he had given
quite lot of study to the manufac-
ture of liquor and his questions were
asked in logical sequence which was
surprising and led to the one con-
clusion-that the chemical analysis is
more or less of makeshift.
What the Law Requirea
That the chemical purity of liquor
sold by the State was one of the three
Fundamental shibboleths is made evil
dent from the very first section of the
dispensary law. Herein ii is de-
clared:
"All alcoholic liquors in this
state whether manufactured within
this state or elsewhere, not having
been tested by the chemist of the
South Carolina college and found to
be pure and free from poisonous, hurt
full and deleterious matters, are here
by declared to be of a detrimental
character, and their use and consump-
ton are against the morals, good
health and safety Of the state, and
all such liquors may be seized where
/ ever found. without warrant, and
disposed of as hereinafter provided. "
The law goes so far as to state that
J any person in the state intending to
import liquor from another state, or
foreign county, must certify to the
State chemist the amount and kind
Of liquor he wants and he must get
sample which the state chemist is
required to test "and if found to be
pure and free from any poisonous,
hurtful or dcletcrious matter, he shall
issue certificate to that cffcct.'
And TO show how strenuous is the
effort Of the dispcnsary law to make
ii appear that none but chemically
purc' liquors were put on sale, the
railroads were made amcnable to a
fine Of $500 for each offcnse proved
against them for carrying whiskey
which has not attached the certificate
Of the State board as to the chemical
purity
What is it's Signifcance7
See. $50 Of the Criminal code SAYS
in part: .....
"In all purchases or sales Of intoxi-