The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1908-04-22
States Rights.

The editor of the Press and Banner speak.
ing for himself:
Our much respected contemporary, the
| Newberry Observer, seemed to be ''out OF
sorts" last week when discussing the wind
lng-up commission OF the State dispensarS'
We are always sorry to see 80 good an eoitor'
as Mr.. Wallace is, writing in the spirit Whlon
characterized the article OF which we SPEAK
The fact is, the Observer showed 80 much
feeling, that is was possible for him not 10
be fair. .
As far as we r~ecollect nobody has censureo
the commission for defepdirg States rlghts.
! And we know OF no reason why JUDGE
Pritchard's commissioners should be censur'
ed. AS we see 1t, they are all equally good
men.
The settlement OF the legality OF Judge
Prltchard's action in the matter ia In the
Courts, and 1t 10 fair TO presume hat the
Judges OF the Federal Court will do their duty
as they see 1t, without reference 10 spiteful
remarks Of any Newspaper.
We think the Observer is In error when 1t
speaks OF "some subsidized newspaper" We
know quite a number Of newspapers IN this
| State, and we have no suspicion that any one
| Of our acq uaintance is ''subsldized." We be-
lieve the newspapers OF this State are sufh-
~clently honest to be above the suspicion OF
being Subsidized"
Speaking for this editor about States rights:
We do not believe that the State OF South
Carolina has any more right TO be dishonest
than has any other corporation. Whenever
the State Of South Carolina refuses to sdjudl'
cate her own contests by tho ordinary meth
dds for settling disputes, and when she uses
her power instead OF Justice, law. and equity
to decide matters In her own favor, then we
are opposed to States rights. Weare as much
opposed to dishone sty by the State az we are
to dishonesty by individuals OF corporations.
We are opposed to the Slate exercising Its
corporate W to defeat and crush out the
rights OF q detenseless individual.
We think the State OF South Carolina
should stand before the Courts exactly az do
other corporations. Might can never take
the place OF right.
For Instance: II an Individual should build
a dixie to keep the food water OF a swollen
stream off OF his low lying lands, and II
neighboring ~citissns should object TO having
the surplus water thus diverted from Its
natural course and turned on to their lands.
would our respected brother keep the injured
neighbors out OF Court? II he would not DO
80, why should the State assert the right to
disregard the claim OF the injured citizen?
States rights In this instance would be
merely the States right to do q wrong, with
out mourning liability.
The State OF South Carolina. like any other
corporation, should be held responsible for
A. .to - lto ononfa ENr tnafhnnQ. Whar
the great State of South Carolina, gets do.I
from its high pedestal, and goes INTO the
money markets to borrow money from q
citizen 1t should have no more right 10 repu-
dlste that debt than has an individual to
repudiate bis debt. By what method Of ret
soning can a State justify exercising It's
strength to evade the payment OF a debl7
The State in the exercise OF It's legitimate
W took charge Of the liquor business In
this State some fifteen years ago. The expert
ment was q new one. and the business was
not safe-guarded as 1t should have been.
Gaps for temptation were left open. For
years charges OF wrong doing were in the air.
The Legislature knew OF 1t, but took little or
no notice. Finally, when the Institution was
wiped out, 1t is proposed to m the
charges for liquor. This, too. after the liquor
had brought $4,000 Into the State treasury.
II the liquor cost the State too much. the In
creased cost is understood to have been sdded
to the price OF the liquor when sold to the
people, with additional profits. Agents OF the
State promised too high a price. Other agents
the State sold 1t at the higher price. And
now, when the State has the money in hand,
t proposes TO scale the claim of the dlshllers. !