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

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.. Cromer said that the first dill
fculty to be encountered IN pro-
hibition movement was indifference.
The second difficulty was an attempt
on the part Of the opponents to de-
ride it and sneer 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, mad
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 interefered
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 its nature is dan
gerous to the morals, good order,
health and safety Of the people, and
is not to be placed on 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 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-
fc, because under prohibition more
LIQUOR would be sold. DR.. Cromer
said he 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 iqr nder a prohl-
bition law. It was lie, he said, a
specious lie, hot out Of hell. They ar
eued 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 I will find the revenue.' He did
not believe in debauching society be-
cause a few dirty dollars might be
realized.
DR.. Eromer said that a few years
ago he wrote to Governor Hoch, Of
Kansas, in regard to the prohibition
law Of Kansas, and he read extracts
from Governor Hooks letter bearing
out ais argument.
During the course Of his remarks
DR.. Cromer said that a few years ago
a member Of the board of control
said that the difference between
Charleston and Greenville was that
when a blind tiger was caught in
Greenville he was put on the chain
gang; when blind tiger was caught
in Charleston he was put on the grand
jury. But he was glad to say that
"under Mayor Rhett conditions are
improving"
DR.. Cromer said there was no law
that was absolutely enforced, but
that under a prohibition law the IL
ouor traffic was no longer legalized.