The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-01-27
MANNING CITIZENS PROTEST.

MANNING CITIZENS PROTEST.
Last Monday afternoon the
following petition, or protest, to
the General Assembly was cir
culated in Manning and was
generally signed by the business
and professional men Of the
place. Only a few declined to
sign the paper when presented,
while a number of others could
not be seen, and hence did not
have the opportunity to either
sign or decline. The protest,
which explains itself, was as fol
lows:
ITO our Representatives in the Gen
eral Assembly of South Carolina:
Whereas, an election was held in
November, 1908. at which the voters
OF Clarendon county, by a majority o!
three to one, expressed their will that
the dispensary at Manning should be
closed, pursuant to which the said dis
pensary has been closed for more than
sixty days: and -,
Whereas, we are informed that bill
has been introduced in the Legislature
for the purpose Of opening the said dis
pensarv for the purpose OF dlsposing OF
the goods on hand st a profit or to avoid
loss, and we think that this would be 8
calamity to our town by reason OF the
consequent disorder. and further. De-
cause it is defiant disregard of the
wishes of the people OF this county as
they have expressed them.
Now we, the undersigned, business
men of the town Of Manning, respect
fully enter this as our protest against
the passage of such measure
We have no criticism to pass
on any one. either for getting
up, circulating, signing or de-
clining to sign this paper. So far
as that is concerned we simply
note that the paper was geuer-
ally signed and that it has been
forwarded to the General AS.
sembly. The weight of public
opinion as expressed is unques-
tionably against the sale of
LIQUOR insManning. It may not
be so certain as to what the
weight of private opinion is as
TO the use of liquor. The ex.
pressed opinion will no doubt be
duly regarded by the General
Assembly, and in all probability
there will be no re-opening of
tue county dispensary to dispose
of the stock of liquor eft on
hand when the institution was
closed last fall. What, then, is
to be done? Here is a case of
:scan't deliver the goods" al
though the goods are on hand
and in shape for delivery. Can
no one suggest a practical plan
Of getting rid Of the incubus?
There are some who are very
much opposed to the selling Of
intoxicating liquors in Manning,
but are willing for the stock to
be closed out in bulk to be re-
tailed IN some other community.
They are something like the
young woman who became con-
verted and who announced that
she had given up the wearing
Of jewelry, and when asked what
she had done with her jewels
she said she had sold them to
her sister Nancy. Again, there
are those who are anxious to
have the elephant taken off their
hands, but want it done without
a loss. The liquor is over there
in the dispensary building. and
it cost so much money, but at
whose cost was it put there:
How does the matter stand, any
how: Is Clarendon county and
the town of Manning ahead on
the game at this stage, or not:
If more profits have been made
and divided than capital invested,
then in such case the goods on
hand are in effect free Of cost.
Now, if public opinion here is
against making money for public
uses by selling liquor, it should
also be against saving money by
selling liquor at wholesale or
any other manner whatsoever.
That being the case the only
logical thing to do is to have the
high sheriff Or some other official
take all the stuff on hand and
burn it up or dump it in the gut
ter. If as people we are firmly
fixed on reform, and will not
countenance the use of liquor,
let US be willing to pocket the
loss, and not scheme t. sell out
to sister Nancy.
Mr.. James A. Hoyt has just or