Los Angeles herald., 1909-06-30

F=57sz57 HE South Carolina liquor dis
w. pensary will close finally
ssY a today. The dispensary meth
H 49, cd of regulating the liquor
A WN traffic will be continued In
3&EElAl twenty-one of the forty-two
counties of South Carolina,
but the state will go out of the liquor
business for itself, leaving to its civil
subdivisions the field which 1t entered
sixteen years ago. The people of the
Palmetto state, just prior to the assem-
bling Of the state legislature for the
session at which the dispensary law
was enacted in 1893 voted to abolish
the sale of liquor. and It was thought
that Il law to effectuate the will of the
people would be enacted. They were
given the dispensary instead of proht-
bition, although the lower house of the
legislature passed a prohibition bill by
large majority.
From the time of the enactment of
the state dispensary law the system,
or some phase of II, has been a prin-
Cipal issue in every election in South
Carolina. One of the chief concerns of
every legislature has been to correct
some OF the evils of the great moral
institution, as the advocates of the
system termed the dispensary. This
term as used by enemies of the dis
pensary degeuerated In the vernacular
INTO the II. M. L. Inc people nave
never voted directly upon the question
OF dlspensary or no dispensary. There
has never been such a strong opposl-
tion to the dispensary method of SELL
ing liquor as applied in the counties.
The chief objection has been to the
central dispensary. from which all the
dlspensaries in the state were supplied
with liquor.
Tntnf;ap NthaY. StthdfUictopu baUA
always had the right to say, under the
dispensary law, whether liquor should
be sold within their bounds. If they
voted TO permit the sale 1t had to be
sold at dispensaries, which must be
supplied from the central dispensary
at Columbia at a profit of 10 per cent
to the state. This profit, by the way,
went into the school fund. Most of the
towns and counties applied to schools
and local improvements the profits de-
rived from the liquor traffic.
The control of the state diSpensary
was vested in a board of directors and
a commissioner, the latter the highest
salaried officer of the state govern
ment. He managed a business valued
at $4,000. 900 a year. The commissioners
and the board of directors were chosen
by the legislature. Each county dis
pensary was in charge of dispenser
for the county management of the in
stitution. Enforcement of the dis
pensary law was vested in a constabu-
larry, under orders of the governor of
the state. This feature of the law pro-
duced most intense opposition, especial
ly in the cities and towns. The con-
stables were empowered to search resi-
dences suspected of containing contra
band liquor, and the exercise of this
power occasioned riots and bloodshed
in various parts of the state.
The so-called police" features OF the
system, and these continue to exist, do
not excite great criticism; indeed, they
appear to appeal to the great majority
of order-loving citizens. Dispensers
must sell liquor in unopened packages
of not less than a half pint in the case
of whisky and in the case of beer not
less than pint nor more than five
gallons. No liquor must be drunk or
opened on the premises where sold, and
no lettering in dispensaries Is allowed.
All dlspensaries must stay closed from