The Union times. [volume] (Union, S.C.) 1894-1918, 1906-07-13

part of the profits which arise
from the sale of liquor in the
other counties. This is unjust, as
everyone must acknowledge, but
it can be remedied very easily bv
having the State dispensary
make no profits other than a few
thousand dollars above its run
ming expenses, thus leaving the
counties and the towns to divide
the profits between them. This
can be easily done and when we
consider the expense of buying
liquor in retail quantities and
paying local freights on it in
stead of buving carload lots and
paying through freights the
county dispensary cannot stand
the comparison. But this is not
the greatest objection.
! The leakage or stealage in bot
ting of liquor at each county
dispensary would be immense,
and | know no way that it could
be prevented, nor do | know any
by which it would be possible to
prevent the whiskey being wat
cred, bottled, refilled, relabeled
and other schemes of making
money dishonesty, if the system
were adopted. 1t is not possible
to prevent it, and | do not think
any sensible man who considers
the question will seriously con-
tend that it is. Even if one-half
of the counties in the State
should adopt the prohibition
blind tiger-jug trade program
it would be better, more econom-
ical and there would be less pos
sibility of corruption and specula-
tion in the purchase and ham
ding of liquor in the other dis
pensary counties, if the buying,
bottling and shipping should be
done at one central depot instead
. ir ,naah county.
cause it was the unue1svs...
I land a bargain was made) dur
: ing the fight in the Legislature
Z last winter against the State
e Dispensary, that the ultimate
s purpose is to have Charleston
i wholesale liquor dealers supply
+ the county dispensaries as vel
e as the jug trade by express il
u dry counties; and while thi!
= would be better than to have thi.
e liquor shipped in from NORTH
e Carolina and Georgia, as it nov
Z is, because it would keep tn,
Il money at home. | do not nov
!, believe that the people of thu
q State are now willing or will evel
IS be willing to see the State Dis
pensary destroyed, with the in
Is evitable result that liquor selling
s will gradually go back to the ole
:; system of private control.
IL would be glad to have Charleston
> prosper, but it is not the loss O.
/, the liquor trade that hurts Char
q lesion. Other things are t,
u blame.
r The issue between private con
s. troll and control by State official
d must hinge at last on the ques
l. tion of whether or not the peopl
le of South Carolina shall determin
o that we cannot find honest me
N enough to carry on the disper
IF ssry system and devise laws t
a. make those who are dishones
I'd afraid. say we can. | do no
st believe that every man who har
to dies whiskey must become
ne thief. / believe that the peopl
is only need to see and know ths
d. the dispensary system can be re
ID formed and cleansed of corrul
nd tion to make them stand by it.
be / will proceed to give the pla
is which appears to me after
to great deal of thought and col
'r. sideration of suggestions fro
nd very many sources to be the bes
US We will begin on the counties.
Sc County dispensers should |
;" elected in the Democratic pr
no mary the same as other officer
he The County Board should |
lat composed of the mayor of I'll
is town in which a dispensary
IN located, the supervisor of tt
a Concluded on 9th page.)