The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-01-29

man In the executive chamber down.
stairs. with only few votes against
him. The farmers were compelled to
use the liens as basis OF credit and
to destroy the basis Of Gre dit meart
tho ruin or the small farmer.
Mr. Alan Johnstone urged the re-
peal Of the present law and spoke
along the lines which he so ably pre-
sented last year when the bill was up
for discussion.
Mr.. Norton and Mr.. Carey opposed
the Richards bill. the latter seeing no
reason that change should he made.
He thought these meetings urging the
repeal were attended mostly by land
lords and that the tenants had little
showing.
Mr.. Johnstone asked Mr.. Carey if ne
was willing to submit the repeal OF
the lien law to the peorle. Mr.. Carey
replied that he was willing to do this.
but until they had taken a vote on the
subject he would mot be willing to re-
peal the raw.
Mr.. Rucker also spoke against the
repeal Of the law md after his re-
marks the house adjourned debate un-
III this morning on account OF the joi.,t
session called to hear Gen. Leo.
The text Of the Richards bill Is aa
fellows.
Sec. I. That section '305s volume
I. code of laws. South Carolina, 1908.
relating to liens for advances. be. and
the same is hereby. repealed.
4. Sec 2. That ali acts or parts of acts
inconsistent with this act he. and tho
the same are hereby. repealed.
Provided. This act shall take effect
on the first day Of January. A. d.
1909"
Thc bill introduced by Mr. Hydrick
Is as follows:
mo mortgage of any cr,p or crops
shall be good and effective to convey IT,
the mortgaeec any interest in any crop
or crors other than the crop or crops
to be raised during the year in which
said mortgage Is given, and unless the
land whereon said crop Or cro ps. are to
BIZ raised shall be described or men
timed In SAID mortgage. and unless
the, crop or crops herein referred to
shall be up and growing at yhe time
CT the eyccution Of the mortgage.
'"rhat said amendment shall: not
take effect until the first day Of jan
uary. 1sOs."
y There are majority and minority re-
ports on both Of these bills.
The dispute over the establishing of
a dispensary at North Augusta by the
Aiken county dispensary board was
again thu subject Of discussion in the
house yesterday and as result the
resolution offered by Mr.. Lane Of
Marlboro the day previous was strick-
en- from the record ard 1t was decided
to leave tho entire matter to the dis
pensary committee. which has now
before it several petitions for prohi-
hition. for amendments to the present
dispcnsary law and for submitting to
the voters Of Aiken coanty the ques-
ton of dispensary or no dispensary.
The acton was not taken by the
house, however, until there was e ,r-
siderable dis vssion. 1t was brought
up by Representative Croft OF Aiken
after Mr.. Gyles OF that same county
moved that the resolution offered by
Mr.. Lane be recalled This resolution
condemned the action Of the Aiken
county board in establishing n dis
pensary at North Augusta. a. undem-
ocratic and against the wish. OF the
Icople of that section.
Mr.. Croft went into the history of
the establishment OF the dispe.Isary.
stating that out OF tho 63 siancrs Of
the petition against the disprnsary 81
depended upon Augusta f,r their ,iv-
Ing and were Influenced by the ycople
OF that city; the city that sent a dele
CATION to Atlanta to lobby asains,
prohibition and had never beer
known TO protest against South Caro-
linis,ns ratronizing Augusta barrooms.
He could not sec why ally other
county should condemn the action o.;
Aiken county. capable OF taking care
OF Itself.
Mr.. Gyles, who made the motion 70
reconsider the resolution. sai6 that he
believed the facts stated therein were
correct AMI according to his insor-
mation the people who protested
against the dispcnsary were taxpay-
srs and citizens Of this State. How
ever, he did not think the house
should condemn the county Until n