The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1909-09-30
p1sPENsAR1Es WITHOUT PROFIT
A New Proposition of the Prohibi-
tiOnistS.

ton fight in the house and senate
and those outside of either, have all
come we'll into the lime light recently
through expressions as to what may
or may not, ought or ought not to be
done by the next session of the legis-
lature on the subject of prohibition,
prohibition, prohibition.
Some of the leaders seem to think
that compromise course meant a
compromise, others insist that they
are not bound by any compromise or
anything else, that what they want
they are going after if it looks as II
there is a chance to get it,
For some time the idea of reducing
the profits of the dispensary has
been working among the people who
do not like that institution, and it
was suggested several times last
year during the fight and after it was
over, and the probability is that 1t
will be urged in the next body. 1t
has a very taking way about it.,
and it may prove seductive enough
to capture votes enough to pass.
There is a strong probability that,
in the event Statewide prohibition
bill is not passed at the next session
of the legislature, a bill will be in
troduced by one of the prohibition
leaders of the House, eliminating the
profit feature Of the present dispen-
sary system. Such a measure would,
no doubt be supported by prohibi-
tionists, and would naturally be
fought by advocates of the dispen-
sary system.
The argument is advanced that the
removing of the profit feature from
the dispensary law would place all
counties on an equal basis. The prohi-
bition counties do not enjoy the
profits from legalized sale of whis-
key. "The idea is," said a prominent
prohibitionist, in speaking of the
plan to-day, Ito allow merely the
legalized sale of whiskey by eliminat-
ing the profit feature. This would
give the six counties now having dis
pensaries the right to sell, but would
not give to the counties any money
from the sale of liquors. Go back to
the old dispensary system. Those
prohibitionists who voted for the
State dispensary did so believing
that the sale of whiskey would be
curtailed. This was true to an ex-
tent, but look what happened when
the profit feature was stressed. There
were charges of graft. Take then
the county dispensary system. 1t is
a well known fact that many uphold
this system because Of the revenue
which comes to the county govern
ment. While there were some men
who supported the county dispen-
sary system for this sole reason main
ly, they did not state so in the legis-
lature, but gave other reasons. But
it was generally understood that the
profit feature was the main incentive.
Some more counties might have been
add to the list of drys in the recent
election but for the revenue involved
in the dispensary system"
The bill that would be introduced
would provide that the dispensaries
be run strictly upon a "cost" basis.
That is to say the cost of running
the dispensary would be the sole
profits to be accrued from the sale of
beer and whiskey and other liquors.
How could this be done?" was
asked.
1t was suggested that the prices be
reduced on the various kinds of stock
in the dispensaries so that the gross
profits would be less. For instance,
a bottle Of whiskey now selling for rs
cents might be reduced to 60 cents,
and thus the profit 50 reduced that
only the proportionate share of the
cost of running the dispensary be
obtained from this individual sale.
With the prices cut down in proper
tion on all goods it is figured the dis
pensaries may be placed on a basis
so that no net profits might result.
would not this result in the dis
pensaries in the six counties now re-
tanning them going out of business?"
Exactly so," was the reply. Natur
ally, with the profit feature re-
moved the counties now having dis
pensaries would not want to retain
them, and the dispensaries would
last about as long as it would take
to have an election.
The whole effect of a bill of this
kind would then be to bring about
Statewide prohibition. Prohibition
lists are working hard to make the
whole State dry, and this move is
quite polite one. The local option
lists were caught mapping at the last
session of the legislature, and if
such bill as this one is passed the
will be a thing of the
past without any doubt
That question of faith does not
appear to be worrying some of the
prohibitionists at all. Those who
voted for the compromise bill are
generally considered to be bound by
the implied agreement as has al
ready been pointed out from time to
time. But there are others, and for
reasons who do not consider them
selves bound at all in any manner by
the compromise at the last session of
the legislature.