The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1909-05-05
AMONG THE EXCHANGES
The Unregenerate View.


rens Advertiser. which advocates
state prohibition. agrees with The
News and Courier. whose view Is un-
regenerate, that the State dispensary
commission should pay the debts
contracted by che State disncnsary
directors for the whiskey that they
bought, because the state authorized
Nheir purchase by law The News
md Courier Is gratlned to discover
nat at least one prohibition author
jty "concurs in the result" as the
Justices of the Supreme court would
say; namely. that purchase OF whs-
key lawfully made on credit carries
with 1t an obligation TO pay. Our
Laurens contemporary. however be
lieVes that the dispensary law was
unconstitutional but that the mo-
rality' Of the debts incurred under
ir is none the less established In
other words, The Advertiser. while
iS 10 sure that the state dispensary
was a gigantic blind tiger. thinks
mat because it operated under the
color OF law, It's obligations are bind.
lug. We suppose that by the same
process OF reasoning the debts due
10 blind tiger openly defyng the
Iaw would be binding in The Adver-
Users opinion, as it rests its conclu-
sion on morality in distinction from
Legality Our prohibitiOnst friends
are. therefore. driven to the couclu
sion that the State should pay for
liquors used to destroy homes. to
encourage and promote murder and
other crimes and to corrupt the body
polite.
In this connec ton, it may be worth
while to Impress upon the "wndng-
up commission" that under the terms
OF the State disponSary Act "al alco-
nolic liquors. whether manufactured
within this State or elsewhere. not
having been tested by the chemist OF
thc South Carolina college and found
20 be pure and free from poisonous.
hurtful and dclctcrouS matters" were
thereby declared To be of Il drtrmrn-
tai character and their use and con
aumption against the morals. good
Ncalth and safety Of the State" All
wicked liquors were absolutely out
Iawed by the Act which also comsti-
tuted the chemist Of tie south Caro-
iiaa college the sole arbitrr in re-
gard To these goods The com
Ini*sion therefore, in cunsdrring the
Claims Of whiskey houses. should de-
pend especially upon the evidence OF
Ia" chemist Of the South Carolina
college in passing upon the legality
Of the claims. and ii apparently is
not bound in conscience to pay for any
liquors that the chemist does not
swear were wholly free OF the in
furious qualities indicated.
From the point OF view OF the pro-
nibittonists we suppose that the chem
ist could have found no alcoholic Ii
quors that were not "hurtful." but
as we understand from The Adver-
tlSer, the prohioitionistS will forbcar
20 raise that point. We would i'm
press. however. that a vhiskcv house
which sold liquors that failed to
Ah"dSuie u the t"St 81 virtue pre-
icribed by the chemist is entitled To
no consideration The whiskry houses
chance and sold liquors containing
knew the law. and If they took a
hance and sold liquors containing
poisonous. hurtful and dcleterious
matters they will have no right to
complain II their claims be- thrown
out OF court. The law did not con
template a sale Of whiskcv containing
some good and some bad ingredients.
a Whiskey with slight infusions OF
poisonous and hurttul matter was i'm
violation Of the law and when one
recalls the character OF the stun that
the State dispensary handled one is
IN despair for these claimants.
However, the State Of South Caro-
lima cannot AFFORD TO incur the danger
oi charge Of reputation. and it were
better for the commission to err ON
'he side Of liberality IN dealing with
tho claims than to have ii said that
me state attem pts to evadp q contract
1nis, as we repeat is an nnrcgem
crate point Of view News ana Cou-
ri"T