The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-10-01

| ltulcS "cic uSN lItlS Tie luOSt pO"ei-
full demon that a patient God had
ever let live. He spoke Of the twin
gaints, Whiskey and Money, and
said if the money giant were out Of
the way, the liquor giant would be
easier to cope with.
DR.. Cromcr said that the first DIFF
liculty to be encountered in a pro-
| hibition movement was indifference.
The second difficulty was an attempt
on the part Of the opponents to de-
ride it and sheer at it. Then, driven
from that argument, the opponents
of prohibition held that it was an at
tempt to interfere with private rights,
that it was unconstitutional. But the
courts had said that the state, in the
exercise Of its police power, had
said that the state not only had the
right to control the liquor traffic,
but had the right to prohibit the man.
ufacture and sale Of liquor, and not
only that, but the right to prohibit
the manufacture Of liquor for private
use. DR.. Cromer referred to the su-
preme court decision in the case Of
the State v. Aiken, AZ S. c., 231. The
case was an appeal from the decision
of Judge Hudson declaring the law
unconstitutional, the famous decree
| of Judge Hudson, after the signing
of which ne laid down his pen and re-
marked that in signing that decree he
| had signed his death warrant. In
that decree Judge Hudson had held
that the dispensary law girdled the
tree Of life because it intercfercd
with the right Of the individual.
The supreme court held the dis
pensary law constitutional, and
the decision rested upon this declara-
ton: Liquor in it's nature is dan
gerous to the morals, good order,
health and safety of the people, and
is not to be placed OH the same foot
ing with the ordinary commodities
Of life, such as corn, wheat, tobacco,
and potatoes. And the supreme
court, ne said, were weighing their
words, because it was a hotly contest
ed matter
When driven from their constitu-
tional intrenchment, the liquor men
said that prohibition would not pro-
hibit; that prohibition was a good
idea, but that it was visionary; it
was better to regulate the liquor traf-
tie, because under prohibition more
liquor would be sold. DR.. Cromer
said lie was never able to understand
why the liquor men were willing to
spend millions Of dollars to debauch
legislatures if they believed they
could sell more liquor under a prohi-
bition law. 1t was lie, he said, a
specious lie, hot out Of hell. They ar
gucd that under a prohibition law, the
state would lose the revenue. He
said that he had often quoted from
Gladstone, who said, when a delega-
ton Of Scotch brewers waited on him
TO protest against his prohibition
views on the ground that revenue was
cut off, that the question Of revenue
must never stand in the way Of need
ed reform; "give me sober popula-
ton, not squandering their money,
and [ will find the revenue" He did
not believe in debauching society be-
cause few dirty dollars might be
realized.
DR.. Nromer said that a few years
ago he wrote to Governor Hoch, Of
Kansas, in regard to the prohibition
law Of Kansas, and he road extracts
from Governor Hooks letter bearing"
ont his argument.
| During the course Of his remarks
DR.. Cromcr said that a few years ago
Il member Of the board Of control
said that the difference between
Charleston and Grcenvillc was that
when blind tiger was caught in
Grcenvillc he was put on the cnain
gang; when blind tiger was caught
in Charleston he was put on the grand
jury. But he was glad TO say that
"under Mayor Rhctt conditions are
improving.'
DR.. Cromcr said there was no law
that was absolutely enforced, but
that under n prohibition law the H.
quor traffic was no longer legalizcd.
He admitted that morals could not