Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-08-19
The State vs.. The STATE
An Editorial That Was Frank and
Fair.
1899 Literature APPLICABLE TO 1910
lndisputabIe Evidence That When the
Columbia State Undertakes to
Charge Mr.. Featherstone With Hav-
ing Changed His Position, II Is
Merely Acct ING Itself.

The following editorial tnat appear
ed in the Columbia State Of January
2S, 1899. was headed "Featherstone and
Local Option:
Had we known in the beginning Of
September that the prohibition candi-
date for governor was a man possess
ing the qualities of mind which Mr..
C. C. Featherstone reveals in his letter
to The State today we would have es-
teemed it duty and a privilege to
support him for the Democratic noni-
nation. For Mr.. Featherstone shows
himself not only to be practical and
broad in view but of a spirit so mag
unanimous that he is willing to sup
port on its merits policy which was
pressed to his disadvantage in tho
campaign and cost him his election.
We can only deeply regret that we did
not know him better and earlier.
Mr.. Featherstone's letter Is a strong
argument for the support of local op-
ton by the Prohibitionists in the gen.
eral assembly. He disclaims authority
or desire to speak for the Prohibition
lists of the state, but yet maintains
with unquestionable logic that the
views he holds are staunch prohibit
ton views and that the policy he sup
ports will prove to the advantage of the
prohibition cause. There Is no sacri-
flee of principle involved. he declares;
the question before the ProhibitiOnists
at the present time is a question Of
eXpediency only, and t. IS better for
them now to accept three-quarters of a
loaf than to get no bread at all. That
done, they can continue to strive for
the remainder. For this occasion, then,
Mr.. Featherstone is a local optionist.
For the future he reserves the right to
be what the best interests Of the pro-
hibition cause demands.
1t is declared by Mr.. Featherstone
that "the dispensary system can never
lead to prohibition" for it is the enc
nv of prohibition. The longer it con-
tinues the more it will fortify itself
against assault. 1t has tremendous
power" in politics and will gain more
if it is given respite. Prohibitionists
have absolutely nothing" to gain by
allowing it to stand. If the state ma
chine stands their fight of last year
counts for nothing"
On the other hand, asks Mr.. Feath-
erstone, what would the repeal OF the
dispensary system mean to the Pro-
hibitionists? We give his answer
with it repealed, and with no 9th!
er law enacted, we would have prohi-
bition in every county in the state.
The tacking of a local option feature
would mean what? That in those
counties where public sentiment is not
sufficiently strong to give us prohiDl-
ton, the liquor system or the county
dispensary system would be in force.
Under either of these systems we would
have all of the good features of the
present dispensary-for under the
present constitution they must remain.
If prohibition were forced upon said
counties, it could not be enforced for
il is nonsense to talk about enforcing
any law which Is not supported by
public sentiment. The non-enforce-
ment of a prohibition law in those
counties would do our cause harm, be-
cause we would be held responsible
for it's nom enforcement. True, we
might have whisky rings to fight in
those particular counties in the future
but what would they be compared to
the great state whisky ring now In
existence?
Il believe that at least three-fourths
of the counties in the state would re-
main under the operation OF the pro-
hibition law. Would that not give us
| three fourths of a victory, which Is
better than no victory at all? Again
those counties would give us a tre-
mendous leverage in our future
| fights"
1T is nonsense to talk about en-
forcing any law which is not sup
ported by public sentiment" Mr.
Featherstone sees and proclaims this
truth. He takes the same view which
The State did the other day-that pro-
hibition not only has nothing to gain
by it's extension over communities ike
Columbia and Charleston, where sent-
ment is hostile to it, but very much To
lose
The only real objection which Mr.
Featherstone sees to prohibition Dy
counties instead of state prohibition
is that the present administration Is
hostile to prohibition and will not en-
force the law. We suggest that to
avoid this difficulty the enforcement
be charged upon the county authorl-
ties. If prohibition has votes enough
TO carry their counties it has votes
enough to defeat them for reelection
if they do not enforce the law. This
is the best feature of local option-it
puts local pressure on local men; II
makes the law and it makes the pun
ishment.
But even if there should be but a
weak enforcement Of prohibition in the
counties adopting it Mr.. Featherstone
holds that this would be more than
offset by the advantages to be gain
ed. The tremendous influence OF the
dspensary in politics would be de-
stroyed. and thrre-fourths Of the couh-
ties would he at the back of the pro-
hibition movement.
Summing up, Mr.. Featherstone says:
1T does not mean a sacrifice OF prln-
ciplp. 1t means that as practical men
we are to seize what is best for us
when the opportunity offers; 1t means
that in our judgment it is better not
To have whisky legally sold in three
fnurths of the counties than to have 1t
sold in all.
"To urge that by doing as | advo-
cate we become allied with the whisky
men is all bosh and sentiment. We do
nothing 81 the kind.
ION the other hand, if we are Of
fcrcd prohibition in three-fourths of
IN, cta IA an1 fail