The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-07-23
Mr.. Featherstone as Local Optionist
Looking over the files of news

most interesting-and instructive--of
literary pursuits. 1t Is deplorable
that few having access to such treas
ure houses have time for the profit.
able diversion. Occasionally how
ever. something happens or is said
that recalls a gem buried In the
musty dusty files, and a search is
rewarded. The following summary OF
Mr.. G. c. Featherstone's campaign
speech last Thursday was such a re-
minder:
Mr.. Featherstone replied to the
arguments Of the local option men.
In regard to the statement that pro-
hibition won't prohibit he alleged
that liquor men are spending millions
Of dollars to defeat prohibition legis-
lation. He said the liquor advocates
are retrenching themselves behind
local option.
Now, The State is not largely con-
cerned in the issue. We have been
quite content to jog along, making
our position clear on the liquor ques-
tion. putting the record in black and
white, and leaving it there. Except
for sustaining a Democratic principle
Of local self-government The State is
about as Indifferent of results as the
average voter appears to be. But
when the esteemed gentleman from
Laurens, whom we have applauded
for his practical local option policies,
begins to throw off," so to say, on
those of us hewing to the line of local
self-government, letting the chips fall
wet or dry, we begin to reach for
the record.
In 1907 there was a good deal of
prohibition talk" The State dis
pensary had been knocked out in a
victory for local option, and many Of
the counties had voted themselves
dry. Mr.. Featherstone, however, was
doing no prohibition talk, except
where he coupled prohibition with
templated securing the benefits and
blessing of prohibition through local
option.
In The State Of October rs, 1907,
appeared a carefully prepared and
exhaustive argument by Mr.. Feather
stone in advocacy Of reverse local
option" We quote somewhat Iiber-
ally, and commend to careful consid-
Grafton.
I'm 1898, when, as a candidate for
Governor on the prohibition ticket I
made canvass of the State, l advo-
Gated with all the vim Of which I
was capable, general prohibition law
for the entire State and fought most
bitterly the local option idea. AT
THAT TIME 1 WAS TEN YEARS
YOUNGER THAN 1 AM NOW. Since
then, have watched with great care
the prohibition movements, both in
this and other States, and have en-
deavored to study the question care
fully and conservatively with view
to ascertaining what was best for
prohibition in the long run.
"Of course, what 1 and other true
prohibitionists desire eventually is q
general prohibition law for the entire
State, but those of us who think con-
serVatively upon the subject DO NOT
WISH TO RUSH INTO A STATE OF
AFFAIRS THAT CAN NOT BE
MAINTAINED. To do so would be
to do irreparable damage and injury
to the cause"
In the wisdom gained in a half
decade. Mr.. Featherstone conceded.
even after the great power of the
State monopoly had been broken, that
general prohibition law would be
dangerous, and might be disastrous TO
prohibition and the cause Of temper
ance. He advocated temporary pro-
hibition by legislative enactment and
then giving the counties the power to
vote In dispensaries if they wished
them. That was local option. We
again quote from Mr.. Featherstone's
statement:
carter suggesting the State be
made dry, as was done, by Legisla-
tive enactmcnt: II do not believe il
would he wise, at this time, to pre-
vent the sale Of WhiSkey from being
voted in, where a majority of the
people of any community are opposed
to prohibition. A PROHIBITION
LAW IN SUCH \ COMMUNITY
WOULD BE DANGEROUS TO THE
CAUSE AT LARGE by reason OF its
non-enforccmcnt until the time
comes when we have an OVER
WIIELMING MAJORITY for pro-
hibition in the ENTIRE State.