The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1906-02-16
THEY RESENT III
SEN ATCR TILLMAN'sINTnRvInw
CALLS FORTH REPLIES
esnkler. Nr. Hanoi and the IN
known mr.. rabbs Take no.
tice Of Senator's Roast.
known Mr.. Ia

.L @@
tice Of Senator's Roast.
The interview given out by asns-
cor Tlliman In Washington In regard
to the legislature of South Carolina
caused somn comment on tho part OF
sone OF the members OF ihe Lsgisla.
ture.
MR. HUaER gINKLHR.
Mr.. Sinkler In rising to q question
of personal privilege Wednesday Haid;
l rish to o question Of personal priv.
lege. l speak for myself and my state.
ment Ia made on account Of the fol.
lowing parae raph published in an In
terviow with Senator Tillmsn which
appeared in the efternooa papers
Wednesday and in the morning pa,
pers Tnursday: Without Charles.
toms nine votes the Morgan bill would
have been defeated by q msj ority OF
TWO votes, 40 II the State dispenaary
Is abolished at this session 10 will DO
done by o dirty bargain between the
old barroom element In Charleston
and these al prohibitiontsts.
'As q member Of this body for
many years from Charleston l would
be lacking In self respeot, ~eareless of
your esteem, II l permitted this raoS.
lens, unjust, untrue charge OF bargain
and salo Of my convictions, and my
convictions On this measure remain
unonangod. No bsrgin Was ever
made 10 my knowledge, nor was my
vote inspired, influenced Ok controlled
by o b4rtoom element or any other
clement or person whatever, and the
charge SO boldly made 10 lacking In
ruth and dignity. 1 voted for local
option because I believe the people
nave q primary and fundamental
righb to say and settle for themselves
That they want. Furthermore, I
would have voted for the Morgan bill
II Charleston ne ser got the option OF
nigh license, although l believe Char
Lesson should got what she wauts and
every other county should have the
same privilege. 1t IL not my purpos
to retaliate with abusive epiehets but
imply to make this statement In
v~indioation OF my 4tSltuds and vote
Ind In Differences TO my ffiands in this
body whoye good opinion l value.
CAPT. HAMEL's REMARKS.
The substance OF what Capt. Ham
81 said Wednesday morning 10 as fol-
lows:
so much had been said charging
prGhiainionists with being In q com
SNsQlY gStliigncg With AhH M
OabtEn ,aorJnakb2 49, At4s
position to be In opposition,to licenses:
that the Morgan bill was not my bll
End | had nothing to do with It's prep.
aratiOn.
The prohibitionists had nothing
TO do with It's being an issue there.
That responsibility was upon the
q spensary people, who, In the e>n
SllUut1onal convention Of 1895, coop3r
ated with the license people to put
Dnat option In.
Mr.. Clayton Of Florence had offer.
I'd an emandment to the original sec.
Uion prepared for the regulation OF
the whiskey question, which amend
mont provided that the focusing OF
the sale OF liquor should be prohibited
In the constitution. The prohibition.
lists IN the convention were working
With the dispenssrY people for the
adophiOn OF this amendment, as 1t
you'd limit the choice bstween dis
peusary and prohibition. But 6he
tate OF the ~dispensary was hanging IL
the balauoe ab thai time and it's con
I'll utionality WAS being tested In the
courts. A member OF the convention
undertook to picture conditions as
they would be under STATE prohibit
zion In case the dispeneary was de-
claro1 unconsti suGional and he TOOK
about the same view that the oppon-
ents take now regarding blind tigers
overrunning prohibition counBles.
The debate val adjourned and q con.
ierenoe was held beoWeen the dispen.
aary and liconse people, and the pre-
sent section was the result Of sheir
deliberations. The dhpensa.y people
and not the prOhibibionistS, In unholy
alliance with the license element IL
che convention are responsible, there
fore, thai we have bhe issue of license
to CONSIDER at all ab this time. IL
their votes hero In onis legislature
the prOhibitiOnistS are seeking t.
tlOhooOly ouUoho OnoliooS0I III u UlOlUt
between evils"
MR.. DABBs REJOINnR:
Mr.. Dabos "Wednesday, by request
made the following statement:
In reply to the 'ranting interview
OF the sGEior senator, l am hateereo
Cllat my prediction has come true :
muc quicker than l anticipated. .
nad iuI Qualification In predicting
chat no would rant on every sbuml
FOR ne had announced his debermina
ion as long ago az last summer 81
whip the boys into line to eibheI
save his pet inStisution or take tn,
stump or prohibition. II he will givt
out sucn . 'ranting' interview and, al
usual With him, 30 run Of ~inacourac
ie3, as will be seen by reference 10 bns
tacts shown by the aye aud nay vot,
on the Morgan bin and Mr.. Hamel't
nitiGion amcn1ment, and that too q
long range FROM Was lington, VIVA;
~ill he do wnen he basins his HAND
primary on che stump?.
Tue history of his previous cam
paigns gives all the answer needed. !
Nh nos uneS8y; l know him 100 we'll,
ev6n Ii | am 10 him unknown, M
POSITION on Tho dispensary was, az /
JnouRht, we'll known IN Sumter coun
ty. l Certainly would not hava be
rome a c4nidate, IL / had thought 1