The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1910-08-03
LAURENS, S. G., AUGUST 8, 1910.
FEATHERsToNE AND HIS RECORD

means that they regard Featherstone
as the only prohibition candidate hav-
ing chance of election and that
Hyatt and Richards are out OF the
running. The estimate Is correct.
The fight on Featherstone is based
on charge of inconsistency. Here
are the facts. Featherstone has been
n prohibtionist all his life.t In 1898
he came within $500 votes or less ot
election as governor, having been fore
ed into the race. against a State dis
pensary candidate. He continued to
work for prohibition without asking
for office. In 1907 he advised the pro-
hibitionists as a matter of tactics not
to press for Statewide prohibition
at that time, the State dispensary
having just been abolished. The
smoke Of that fight had not cleared. 1t
seemed to Featherstone that imme-
diate advance would be impolitic; he
thought that public sentiment was not
prepared for 1t. He urged that pro
hibitionists utilize to the fullest the
advantage gained through the local
option law, capturing all the territory
possible at that time. always declaring
that statewide prohibition was the
goal not to be abandoned. In 1909
a vote in wet counties expelled the
liquor traffic from all save six coun-
ties, in five of which the aggregate
majority for county dispensaries was
about 1000. Even in Richland the
county dispensary won by only 1l2
votes in total of about 1900.
The tremendous and sweeping vic
tories of prohibition in the "wet" coun-
ties in August 1909 appeared to Feath-
erstone as convincing and complete
proof that sentiment for Statewide
prohiNltion was so strong as to hold
out the brightest possible hope for
inc enforcement OF Statewide law,
especially as it was certain that pro-
hibition could be enforced in the one
strongly wet county, Charleston, at
least as well &s the county dispensary
law is enforced What more power
1ul demonstration OF prohibition senti-
ment could. be expected at any time
than was given by the voting in Au-
gust, 1909? 1t made the forward
movement Of the prohibition forces
inevitable i'm 1910.
When general is marching against
fortress, is he traitor because he
haits his men to build bridge?
Featherstone halted his men to build
bridge in 1907; the vote in 1909 when
all nut six counties voted dry" PROV
ed to him that the bridge was built;
now he rallies his men to charge the
fortress. That's his record.
Those who allege inconsistency
meanwhile, have always been defend
ers OF the fortress. Shall prohibition
ISIS take their orders from the enemy?
is that common sense? Are the pro-
hlDltionists so simple as their oppo-
nents take them to be?
But for whom can prohibitionists
consistently vote? Mr.. Hyatt, so the
columbia Record says, supported the
state dispensary. MIR. Richards was
last ditch State dispensa'y advo-
cate. Mr. Mcleod unopposed for
lieutenant governor in 1906. was elect.
ed on State dispensary platform
when Lyon and Ansel had the burden
oil lighting the State dispensary on
their shoulders Mr.. Blease was
last ditch State dispensary champion
In the legislature, standing shoulder
TO shoulder with Richards in trying
to save that institution These men
said the State dispensary is the best
solution of the liquor question:" If
1t was the best solution in 1906, why
isn't ii now? What has converted
them? Why are they repentant? Are
they repentant? Are they prepared
to say that the State dispensary is
not the best solution? If so, why don't
they say so? When has one OF them
acknowledged his error? Do they
mean to say by their present atti-
tude that they would not restore and
reestablish the State dspensary II the
legislature would back them in it.?
Can they say so without admitting
that they changed their minds solely
because the majority of their people,
, the crowd, changed their minds? In
\ a matter or principle do these men
Must follow the crowd?" An act of
Ne legislature would reestablish the
Vate dispensary as an act of the