The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1909-01-27

Il
In each county shall decide whether
or not concealed weapons Shall be car
ried by her citizens. 1t Is not per Sc
a crime to carry a concealed weapon,
but experience has proven that The
habit leads to crime, hence it is pro-
hibited. Every sane man will admit
that the sale of whiskey produces
more crime than the carrying of con-
cealed weapons. Or, to- illustrate fur
ther. why not permit each county
to say. for itself. whether or not
gambling dens shall be licensed with
In its bounds? Again, local self-gov-
ernment, when applied to the liquor
question, destroys to certain extent
the right OF local self government.
This statement may sound paradox
cal. but 1t is true.
Greenville, Spartanburg. Newberry
and Greenwood in the exercise of the
right Of local self-government, says
that whiskey shall not be sold within
their territory. Laurens County says
she will sell whisekey and she sells
not only to her own people but to
to the people within the contiguous
dry territory. thus in a large extent
nullifying and destroying the good ef-
fects Of prohibition in the dry coun-
ties. and depriving those counties Of
local self government. Again, you
cannot localize the bad results which
follow the sale Of whiskey. You can
have a different stock law in different
counties, and 1t may work all right.
You can fence In stock, you cannot
fence In liquor. Different counties
may have different game laws, and
that may work all right. But YOU
cant have whiskey sold in one county
without its proving detrimental to the
whole State. We had might as well
let the people in each county say
whether or not they will vaccinate, to
keep down smallpox. and expect the
disease not to spread, as to undertake
TO confine to county lines the evil re-
suits of the sale of whiskey.
No State has the moral right to
permit any section of It's territory to
engage In any business that Is inher-
emily wrong. or that tends to immoral
ity and crime. whether majority of
the people OF that section are in favor
OF doing 50 or not. The doctrine of
local self-government 10 not applica
Bile In such circumstances. Ifit were
II would destroy root and branch the
very object of all government of tn.
people who constitute the govern
ment. Local option has only been en-
courased and tolerated by prohibi-
tionjsts as means 20 an end-bc-
cause 1t was the best they could get
not because 1t was what they ulti-
mately wanted. nor because they
thought It was sound in principle.
1t may be true. 1t doubtless is, tina,
there are certiin communities In the
State that do not want prohibition,
where II would be hard to enforce il.
but Is 1t not also true that in snch
communities the dispensary law Is
not enforced as 1t should be? Is !,
not true that such communities would
be satisfied with nothing short of the
old bar room system. and that even
under such a system. blind tigers
would flourish? II majority of the
people Of the State are in favor of
crushing out business that endans-
ers the safety. health and morals OF
the people--a business that has done
so much to- blunt the sensibilities of
our people. and that must tend to the
crowding OF penitentiaries and asy-
lums, and to the debauching Of the
young manhood Of the State, should
they refrain from doing SO because
few communities in the State are op-
posed to 1t? Will the time ever come
when every community in the Sta.e
VIII be In favor OF prohibition, when
there will be no opposition?
am always willing to abide by
what a majority of the people think.
l am Democrat and believe iu the
principles Of Democracy. Hence I
think a majority Of the people should
have statewide prohibition when
they want 1t. and am going to do oil
In my power to help them get IT. +
am not trying to convey the idea that
I am not In favor OF State prohibition
because I believe the majority of the
people lean that way have been
fighting for the cause so long that
do not believe that my worst enemy
would contend that I am n prohibi-