The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-03-13
NOTHING GAINED.
Nr. Brunson Compares the Old
and New DIspensary Laws.
He Does Not See Where The Prohi-
bitionists Have Gained Anything
By New Law.
To the Editor Of The State:

To the Editor Of The State:
I do not wish you to think that
prohibition is dead, or that | am dis.
gruntled at defeat. The truth is,
while do not intend to again be 8
candidate for any Office, / shall con,
tinue to vigorously oppose the sale OF
intoxicating liquors for beverage pur.
poses, and with this in view shali
LEND a hand to the organization OF
the prohibition forces during the
next two wears. To this end l hope
Won will give me space in your col
1,rnns for an occasional letter.
The prohibitionlsts were chiefly re-
sponsible for the enactment Of the
| Old dispensary law and true to their
compromising tendencies they de-
serve, in large measure, the credit
for the passage Of the new dispensary
law. There has been much rejoicing
all over the State at the death Of the
G. NJ. l., but it. behooves an intelli,
gent Christian people to examine
carefully and if possible see wherein
the conditions have been bettered.
Will not the county dispensaries,
now being so eagerly established sell
just as much liquor as when they
were under State control? Will not
the stuff now sold by them make just
as much drunkenness and crime as
the stuff they sold before? Have not
the opportunities for corruption and
graft been multiplied by the number
of new county boards authorized to
buy liquors? aIs the general dlstrlbu-
ton of graft germs over the State
better than to keep them in pest
house in Columbia? Is there some
thing peculiar in the soil Of Charles
ton and Columbia that will purify
the liquors there distilled; or was it
for some other reason that to those
cities was given the exclusive right
to establish new distilleries and brew
cries? It is necessary in distlllatlon
to have 10000 people to watch the
process, or was it the object of our
legislators to give to the cities Of
Charleston and Columbia the bulk Of
the liquor trade Of the county boards
throughout the State?
Under the Brice law we had all the
'tlocal option" We needed and the
question was between prohibition and
the old dispensary with its establish
ed corruption-a convicted criminal.
Now, under the Carey-Cothran com
promise we have only the same local
option and the question is between
prohibition and the county dlspen-
sary, the corruption of which must
develop as it is operated. Are we IN
better condition?
The old dispensary law gave US by
far a stronger, better organized sys-
tenn for handling intoxicating liquors
than this loosely-jointed system of
county dispensaries can ever be; and
yet we saw every good feature OF the
law violated, every restriction re-
moved and every barrier to corrup-
ton broken down within a few years.
It should not be forgotten that the
county dispensers under the old sys-
TEN were entirely free from temp
tation in the matter Of buying liqu-
ors--greatest of all the temptations
and yet about so per cent. Of all
those employed had to be dismissed
for shortage in their accounts or
other crime. Can we hope for better
results with increased temptations?
I believe the time will soon come
when the authors Of the Carey-Coth,
ran compromise will be as much
ashamed of their product as certain
others should now be Of the old dis
pensary law.
JOEL E. BRUNSoN,
Greenville, S. c., March 4, 1907.