The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-08-14
THE LIQUOR QUESTION.
VIEWS Of Some Correspondents on
the Subiect

tIlS ouuJCCC.
To the Editor of The Times and
Democrat:
Just now there is much said and
written, pro and con, on the subject
of prohibition. had not intended
writing a word until this morning,
and now I shall not say much, but
humbly ask for little space in your
valuable columns.
There are different classes Of sup
porters on the opposing sides. For
instance, there are sincere prohi-
bitionists, and prohibitionists for
policy's sake and other reasons.
Then there are men sincere and
honest in thier beliefe In legalizing
and supervising the sale of whiskey,
believing that to be the best method
of reducing the evil, and there are
some who pretend to believe there
is nothing wrong in the sale and use
of whiskey. With the last named
never argue.
Now, there are some matters that
/ do not understand. You will
admit that the use of whiskey as
beverage is an evil. No right-mind-
ed man, I think, can deny that.
Then what must we do about it?
The answer must be, get rid of it
not simply reduce its sale. Now,
in the name of common sense and
reason, how is it ever possible to get
rid of an evil so long as we vote
for the existance of that evil? Ex-
actly, how we are going to elimi-
nate the evil from society so long as
we vote for it's sale, 1 cannot see.
Exactly how we are going to keep
our neighbor who has the habit
from drinking, and his boys and our
boys from the temptation, when we
place whiskey shop in their sight.
l do not understand. If the drinker
must have it, and will have it, as
some assert, let him get out and
hunt it himself. 1 will not put it
there for him. He then is respon-
sible, not I. There is possibility
of his not getting it when he has
to search it; we have slight hopes
of his refusal to take it when we
offer it to him.
The present system is supposed
to decrease the sale of whiskey. 1t
has not done so appreciably, to ex-
anime reports. There is no promise
of reform in the present system; it
will be voted for to continue indie
fnitely as, it IS. l have observed for
the last few years no increased re-
striction and no increased difficulty
Of purchase How then is it possible
to decrease drunkenness as matters
now stand?
In an editorial in your last issue
you quote from an article that ap-
peared in Crit" concerning the in
crease in moonshine whiskey in the
South under the prohibition regime.
l do not question the increase. What
do question is the consistency of
the man or State that says: ut is
wrong for you to make and sell
whiskey against the law. 1 have
power to make laws and want you
to stop selling whiskey; therefore,
l will make law that suits me and
then I will sell whiskey and you
must refrain from selling. 1t will
not be as bad for me to sell 1t law
fully as 1t will for you to sell 1t
unlawfully." What is the differ
ence? In both cases whiskey Is
sold. I do not argue for Illicit man
ufacture or Illicit sale, neither do I
favor legal sale, for the legalizing
of any practice whatsoever that Is
inherently wrong does not make that
practice right. The whole thing Is
wrong and the best thing to do, in