The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1907-12-27
(Ralelgh, Il ca

Forty-Lnree petitioners to the origi,
nal petition asking for an election OIL
the question of dispensary or prohi-
bition have signed another petition, n
which. they give their reasons for De
ing against the abolition of the dis
pensary. The signers are all well
known in Raleigh.
The statement issued by these gen.
tIemen, and which is furnished the
press, follows:
We, the undersigned citizens Of Raj
eigh, wish to express our disapproval
of the present movement inaugurated
to abolish the d~ispensary for the fol-
lowing reasons:
First. we dc not believe that the
voting out of the dispensary is going
to bring the result that is expected
and designed by those who favor pho
-hibitiOn- We believe that the dIspcn-
.sary is d better solution of the liquor
problem than ii prohibition law that
experience has taught US cannO be en-
forced until congress shall pass some
law prohibiting the shipment of liquor
AALo tohIbit4OH - IlLCI ~ u
III South Carolina. where laws were
most stringent, nave proven this, and
the criminal dockets of prohibition
counties in this state have shown that
prohibition under these conditions can
not be enforced.
Second. The present net income
from the dispensary is approximately
&7E f1lb annOrti0nnH &C fO1l0WC. Four
tenths or $50, 900 to the city of Raleigh,
three-tenths, or $22,50O to the county
road fund, and three tenths or $22, 800
to the schools, of which last sum the
schools of Raleigh receive about 5 S 5000.
Expensive machinery has been pur-
chased for working the roads with a
view to this income, and in like man.
lea have the county and city school
authorities erected new buildings and
planned greater work along educa-
tiona lines.
To abolish the dispensary means an
increase of tax and the curtailment of
this progress. Raleigh is now going
forward, and in our opinion, nothing
could be so unfortunate as to have 4
great increase in the tax rate upon
property. The tax rate prior to the
establishment of the dispensary for
state, county, municipal and special
purposes. was about S2.46. It is now
about $2.03.
If the dispensary is abolished this
revenue is cut off. This means raising
the tax rate, and when we consider
that d large territory has been taken
into the corporate limits of the city.
rl requiring expenditures for streets,
sewers, and lights, even the former
high, tax rate will not be adequate.
let each voter stop. and think.
Shall we stop this progress and adj
vaacement and burden ourselves with
taxes in order to try b
IeHaRriaent of prohibition, or shall we
continue our progress under present
conditions?
WIN. H.. Williamson, president and
treasurer Pilot Cotton Mills Company,
FL. w. Miller, 7. M. Argo, NJ, Rosen-
thai, ID. rEIIias. F. K. Ellington, j.. D.
Turner, J. G.. Ball, J. D. Whitaker, Leo
Vurnakes, J. S. Wyne, because 1t
does not prohibit; G. B. Ray. because
it does not prohibit; Crowder & Rand.
Herman Heller, F.. H. Busbee, J. N.
Holding, Alfred Williams, W. r. Craw-
ford, L. A. Mailer, F. w Mailer, w.
p Hendrick, c.. H. Ogden, D. Duncan,
r. w. Scarborough, w. J. Crews, Jno.
A. Mills, r. T. Kicks, H. D.. Bunch, H.
A Carr, Walter Clarke, Jr., A. P.
Hardie, E. E. Levy, H. ]. Hellig, c. H.
Beine, E. M. Martin, John A. Duncan,
Van Wyck Hoke, E. H. Fellowes, B.
w. Baker, A. w. Knox.
DR. KNOX'S REASONS.
In signing the above paper | desire
to say publicly that the saving of a
few dollars in taxes and the providing
of revenue for the hoo anu county
roads would never alone move me to
sign it I am moved by a far higher
consideration, to-wit, That in my judg-
ment the d~ispensary is a lesser evil
& than prohibition and | choose it as
such In preference to prohibition.
If l believed that prohibition would
really prohibit the sale of liquor and
dc away with drunkenness, | would
cheerfully vote for prohibition, but I
do not so believe, anda in as much as
an inacideatal rssdHe of the dispensary
Us ahSfncrease OF the funds for schools
--androads, I-accept- that incidental re-
suit without hesitation.
ssz@sfHs~esea4fgaht =@efazffSS"ebffg5ation as a
father to a growing son. l solemnly be-
sa4iaer1sstaAesisaia less danger from
In .d~ispahsarS han4he Would be from
Prohibition, and that is with me a
large motive in casting my vote
aasainst ,pEahibitiont d think that every
sHxxnaasaci tixnuc 81 G1al6r il nnhL tho rnnraI