The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-12-25
DON'T WANT IT.
Augusta Opposes a DispeBsary
at North Augusta
THE CITY IS AROUSED

Citizens from Buying Liquor 0,
This Side OF the Savannah River
Censures the Aiken County Dis
pensary Authorities for Opeaias
Dispensary There.
The order Of the Aiken county dis
eensary board establishing dispen
sary at North Augusta has appar
entity stirred up the neighbors Jus
over the line in Georgia as they have
not been stirred for q long time
The effort OF the city council OF North
Augusta TO block the purpose Of the
dispensary board having failed. the
city Of Augusta has now taken 81
the fight, and there is promise Of
some warc scrapping.
The State prohibition law soes sa-
60 effect IN Georgis tho arst Gay Of
January and Augusta people figure
that if dispensary IS established
at North Augusta it will receive a
large patronage from Augusta peo-
pie, and this they do not take kindly
to in the least. They do not care to
see money poured out Of th pockets
Of the Georgia folks into the treas
cry Of the Aiken county dispensary
board.
The following from the Augusta
Chronicle shows that very unusual
steps may be taken to prevent a
heavy Georgia patronage being given
the North Augusta dispenssry:
The city Of Augusta has gone af-
ter the South Carolina dispensary
good and strong. BY resolution
adopted in council, presented By
Nr. Boutwell, and seconded by Nj.
Blackshear, if the North Augusta
dispensary is continued in operation
the strongest members Of council will
be. used to curtail the trade which
it has been alleged the dispensary is
seeking after the 1st day Of January:
that Of the city Of Augusta.
'"The feature Of the fight to be
made is the fact that if their purpose
is successful Augusta will revive
custom which has long since died
out. that Of charging toll for the
use Of a highway
"The subject Of Mr. Sothwelfs
resolution, offered verbally BY Unan-
imous consent, was that the city at
torney be instructed to examine INTO
the contract between the City OF Au-
gusta and the North Augusta Land
and Investment company, by which
the North Augusta bridge was pre-
sented to the city, and ascertain just
what the rights Of Augusta are II
the premises; if the city has the
right to charge toll for the use OF
the bridge; and under what cono!-
tions the toll may be charged.
'sNr. Boutwell, stated that the OBJ
ject of the resolution was to guard
Augusta against the iniguity OF the
North Augusta dispensary after the
State prohibition law goes into Ell
feet. He said unless something OF
the kind is done North Augusta dis
pecsary bottles will be litterins the
streets OF Augusta. and the lnstlto-
ton will cause the city more trouble
than anything in the whole conmun-
lty.
"The opinion was entertained that
2 toll can not be charged on the
North Augusta Bridge unless II IS
also charged on the Centre street
bridge, but certain Of the members
Of council belieee that only exemption
on the North Augusta bridge IS the
free traHdc Of street cars being inter
fered with.
.'!. is Mayor Dunbar's loea TO
charge a toll OF or I-2 cents each
way for each person using the North
Augusta bridge; allowing all vehicles
free use Of tie bridge. This would
mean that passengers on the street
cars could go over free, by paying
the street car company ten cents
fare; that buggies or persons eoulo
he driven over the bridge without
paving anything. but the people II
the buggies or wagons wouto nave 70
pay toll for themselves.
1T was general believed tnat sh's
can be done. but the city attorney
will take the matter up at once anc
make report to council. It IS IN
derstood that if this should not be
ncssibIe council will dnd some other
vav TO block the free use Of dispen-
sary liquor in Augusta, and cut OF
the expected trade Of that instlto-
ton.
Mr.. Boutwell, suggested, during
;%be course Of the debate. that Il the
city could find no other way around
the dispensary. the commissioner OF
,ublic works could probably con
demn the bridge and have 1t torn
down"
4 Close Call.