Carolina watchman. [volume] (Salisbury, N.C.) 1871-1937, 1908-03-25
Third. Is it right to have such

" LOW upOu OuI SGaGuGo DOOk(
To state the questions more
briefly:
Is the proposed bill fair? Is it
best? Is it right?
In answering the first question
it is necessary that we should an
alyze the proposed bill, that we
should study and understand the
provisions it now contains. We
should not permit our minds to
be diverted by any provision
placed in the bill when first draft.
ed which it does not now contain,
nor by the provision of some laws
now in force that apply only to
some township or county, nor by
any amendments that may posi-
bly, be offered or made to this bill
in the future, sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof" I con-
tend that 1t is hardly fair to at
tempt to inject irrelevant ques-
tions like these into a discussion
of this issue and that to do so in
dicates a purpose to confuse. This
-
bill, as I understand it, provides
that it shall be unlawful to either
manufacture or sell Intoxicating
liquors anywhere in the State of
North Carolina. It further pro-
vides that wine or cider manufac-
tured from grapes or fruits grown
on the place of the manufacturer
can be sold on the premises in
quantities of not less than q
gallons without a license therefor.
It further provides that if a ma
jority of those voting in said cleo
ton shall vote for the bill it shall
be in effect throughout the entire
State, but that if a majority of
the votes is cast against the bill
this shall, in no way effect or in
terfere with the local option laws
now in force in the several coun-
ties of the State, in other words,
should a majority vote against the
proposed bill the conditions will
then be the same as they are now.
AS | understand 1t, these are the
material provisions of this bill.
Is it fair to the people of the
State to have such a law in force?
If not, why not? Its opponents
contend in the first place:
Is it fair?
In the election held in 1881 the
bill for prohibition was passed,
subject to the vote of the people.
with what result we all know. The
State went against prohibition by
a 100000 majority. But since
then the policy of the State has
changed aud the views of the PEG.
pie have been greatly modified.
And as the sentiment against the
whiskey evil grew SO steps were
taken to decrease it's power. First,
by the passage of the Watts bill,
and next, by the Ward bill, these
bills bringing the traffic under
surveillance in towns with a thou
sand inhabitants. Also granting
to towns or counties upon the re-
quest Of the citizens the right to
have local option. A demand was
made upon the Legislature of 1908,
at it's extra session, for statutory
prohibition and that body. after
elaboration, passed a bill leaving
it to the vote of the people, thus
reversing the policy of the State
in 1881.
Is this fair7
They say no. Like the devils
in the demoniac of Gadara, they
say, "Let us alone" That it Is
not fair in its prohibition features
in that it allows the grape
growers of the east to make wine,
and forbids the apple raisers of
the West to make brandy. Yet
the wine makers have to make and
sell their product on the premises
in large quantities and then it is
not allowed to be drunk on said
premises.
Second, That it will not pro
hibit.
Yet in spite of~this objection,
Greensboro is dry. In a CONVEX
sation with Mayor Brandt, who is
not a prohibitionist, he said, "You
can tell the people that prohibit
ton does prohibit"
Third, That the form of ballot
is wrong. Yet what could be
nlo;nor than so oainst the MANN