The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1909-03-04
ACCEPTS COMPROMISE

ACCEPTS COMPROMISE
House Of Representatives Accepts
Straddle of Senate.
BY a vote of IS to Al, the house
adopted the senate amendments to
the prohibition bill, introduced by
Senators Christensen and Williams
and referring the whole matter to a
vote of the various wet counties.
This was not done, however, until
Representative Richards made a Wig
orous protest and urged that no COM
promise be made. This amendment
was in the nature of compromise,
he said, and the prohibitionists were
fighting for a principle and not for a
compromise. There was not much
debate on the amendment and the
vote was taken within 20 minutes
after the Senate sent over the copy.
Many. of the members were out OF the
house and there were about 30 not
voting, in addition to the pairs.
The lineup on the vote presented
an interesting situation. The local
optionists were divided on the ques-
ton, as were the prohibitlonlsts.
Some of the local optionists wanted
to fight the entire; matter out and
if possible send it to free conference,
with the hope that>it would be killed
there. Mr.. Richards, one of the lead
ers in the fight for prohibition, found
his own forces divided, Mr.. Kibler,
who had voted with him, urging the
passage of the amendment. So the
vote was not what might be called
fractional test There was no
doubt early in the morning session
but that the amendment would be
passed, but the smallness of the ma
iority was somewhat of surprise.
After the. passage of the resolu-
ton, Mr.. Hall had a resolution in
troduced, which was that the house
felt themselves in nowise bound to
not work for prohibition at the next
session. The resolution was not con-
sfdered, however, as it was brought
;up after Mr.. Hall left the city during
the afternoon session. The vote on
the motion of Mr. Richards to re-
fuse to concur in the Senate amend
ment, which was defeated, was as fol-
lows:
The Vote.
Isl Yeas -Amick, NJ. J. Ashley, Bodie,
Bowman, w. D. Bryan, Carey, Clary,
Cosgrove, Doar, E. c. Edwards,
Isaac Edwards, Foster, Fultz, Garris,
Gasque, w. J. Gibson, Horger,
Hughes, Hydrick, McColl, Mann,
Mars, Mobley, Niver, Patterson,
Paulling, Richards, o. L. Sanders,
Sawyer, Scarborough, B. A. Shuler,
Singleton, C. A. Smith, Spears, ]. D.
Sullivan, P. P. Sullivan, Suydam,
Wade, Virgins, Williams, o. D: A.
Wilson, W., B. Wilson.
3 Nays-Speaker Whaley, ]. w. Ash
ley, Bowers, Brice. Brown, Carter
Celey, Daniel, Duvall, Fraser, Gra-
ham, Greer, Griffin, Hall, Harmon, j.
r. Harrison, W. c. Harrison, Hines,
Hollis, Jackson, Kibler, Lawson,
League, McEachern, Moseley, Mes
bitt, Nicholson, Nunnery, Ridgell, G.
M. Riley, Robertson, Roessler, c. T.
Shuler, Simkins,, K. P. Smith, Stubs,
Tobias, Wander Horst, Vaughan,
wells, Whatley, Wingo, Wyche.
When the amendment was brought
over Mr.. Richards at once moved
Mr.. Kibler wanted the amend
ment adopted. He had supported the
bill and considered the
light had been won in part. A COM
promise was better than nothing and
it was step in the right direction.
Mr.. Richards Position.
Mr.. Richards then explained his
position. 1t was no individual fight,
but a matter of principle. After 10
days of continued work the house
had put itself on record as favorlng
Statewide prohibition. 1t would be
q shame to recede from this posi-
ton. He thought The State news
paper, the leading exponent of local
option, had correctly stated the idea
when it said editorially that a COM
promise meant that nothing would
be done on the liquor question if this
was adopted. 1t was
known to the newspaper that this
would be proposed and it might mean
the defeat of prOhlbltlon; at least
that vas the idea o. the local option
lists. There was no doubt but that
the newspapers muddled public
opinion and their influence on this
question was not to be despised.
s The vote was then taken, after
Mr. Fraser moved the previous ques-
ton, stating that it had been discuss
ed enough and he believed the
house was ready to settle the dis
pute.
AS soon as the result was announc-
ed and the clincher put on the action
Of, the house in concurring in the
Senate amendment, Mr.. Sawyer
moved to recall the bill from the en-
crossing department, it having been
ordered for enrolment. He thought
it should be thrown in free confer
ence and did not see how the prohl-
bitionists could consent to have such
a bill rammed down their throats and
did not see how the local optlonlsts
could consent to the passage of such
a measure. Anyhow, there were er-