The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-01-22
ANOTHER REPLY TO DOW, JR'
The Observer Calls on Him to "Specl-
fy'' Concerning "the Horrors
of Prohibition.
To the Editor Of The State:

I beg a short space to reply again
to "Dow, Jr.'' In the first place I
call on him to "specify'' and give
the name "of one Of the States most
able d;vines" Of Georgia who preach
ed a sermon in Augusta "in which he
was deploring the horrors Of prohibi-
ton: said it was making criminals of
honest men, lawbreakers of the ma
icrity, and that the whole prohibl-
ton movement was a farce and a
mockerv.'' and so. Name him, and
when you have done that, take the
Augusta directory and name all the
other ministers of that city who are
for prohibition. Is one preacher bet
ter than all the rest? Who is the
preacher whose opinions should out
weigh those Of all the ministerial un-
ion Of his city?
Another Georgia "argument:" 4
Correspondent says that ''children
peddle liquor on the streets Of Say
annah in full view Of the police. y
Well, suppose they do; what then?
Does that prove that prohibition is
wrong, or that Savannah policemen
don't do their duty? Must Georgia
repeal Statewide prohibition because
Savannah policemen permit children
to peddle liquor on the streets? And
if she did, would not these same po-
licemen permit the children to con-
tinue to peddle the stuff on the
streets? If not, why not?
Georgia will get rid Of that sort of
policemen after a while-there can
not be many Of that sort now. Ger
tainly that sort of policemen are not
the kind Of people that any State or
any county or city is to consult when
it comes to decide what is best to be
done.
What does ''Dow" think about it
anyhow ?-tnis Savannah argument
against prohibition. Doesn't he think
this sort of policemen would let "chil-
dren peddle liquor on the Streets if
there were barrooms in Savannah? If
not, then the inevitable conclusion is
that the policemen are the servants
Of the barrooms and not Of the State.
The Observer does not know how
many persons ''stood before the bar
of Justice in this good old prohibition
year of 1908 in the good old prohibi-
ton town Of Newberry for the crime
of murder;' but there were not p
homicides in Newberry county in
1905, and not 81 "boys,'' or men,
black or white, tried for murder eth
e.. There were enough. There has
been one homicide by white man in
Newberry county, and only one that
; I can now recall since prohibition
was established, and liquor had moth
ing whatever to do with that. Quite
a number Of negroes have killed each
other, but the moving causes in most
of these cases were craps and wo-
men, liquor also having its part. But
it is notorious that negroes kill each
other on very small provocation, liqu-
or Or no liquor. But for. prohibition
in Newberry county it is altogether
possible that there might have been
more homicides. Who knows?
"Dow' thinks he has found 8
mares nest in an old issue of the
Observer of Is Years ago, and cack.
les with glee over the following ex.
tracts from Observer editorials OF
January II, 1898:
"Our observation is that with the
exception Of the barkeepers there i
no kicking Of any consequence anc
that large majority of the business
men and leading citizens are heartily
in favor Of the dispensary law, az
against the saloon.''
"We sincerely hope the dispensary
act will stand the test Of the. court:
and that all good citizens will unite
in seeing that it has a full and fail
experiment.
''Dow,' with his 40 years Of expe
rience, remembers, Of course, that the
.dispensary law was enacted in Decem
ber. 1892, to 60 into effect July l
1898; that there was bitter opposition
no the law by the barkeepers ant
their friends and by many of the
town and cities. He remembers, nc
doubt, thai, in defiance of the fact
that the law was to take effect July l
1893, the city councils of Charleston
and Columbia issued licenses to THEN
barrooms for the entire year; tina
even the little town Of Lexington
showed its "indignation' by renew