The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-08-13

fective in Camden and in Kershaw
county; this was because public senti-
ment was back o' tNo law. He said he
would vote to repeal the section of the
law making 1t unlawful for a man
to have liquor for personal use.
G. f.. Stubbs.
Chairman Hodge announced that
Mr.. c. E. Stubbs, candidate for re.
election, was sick and unable to be
present.
II. b. Fraser.
Mr.. T. B. Fraser thanked the people
of Privateer for the fine vote they
had given him every time he had been
a candidate, 1t was testimonial Of
confidence that he appreciated per-
sonally, but 1t was more than that for
it made him feel that the people ap-
proved Of what he had done and had
tried to do as their servant and rep
resentative and it nerved him and
strengthened him to do better work.
He said that he favored education
in all its departments and his vote
and his voice had been used to furth-
er this cause. He said that he had
heard that there had been some criti-
cism of the division that had been
made of the profits of the county dis
pensary between the city, county and
school fund, and would say that the
county delegation had endeavored to
give the schools as nearly as possible
the same amount that they had re-
ceived from the dispensary fund under
the old State dispensary, had tried
to leave things as they found them
and had done so. inasmuch as the
schools received within a few dollars
the same amount as they had pre-
viously received. He would not criti-
else those who thought money for the
schools was good no matter what the
source, although personally he held
the opinion that whiskey money
should not be used to educate our
children, any more than the colleges
should accept money from Rookie
feller--had opposed the taking of
$4,000 of Standard Oil money by
Davidson College on the same ground.
AS to the liquor issue Mr.. Fraser
said he would read what he had to
say-he had decided to write out his
views for two reasons, first in order
that he might have his position clear
ly on record and second that he might
make If brief. He read the following
statement:
ION the liquor question I want to
say am for local option, not because
I am opposed to prohibition but be-
cause I am in favor Of prohibition.
Being in favor Of prohibition 1 want
that ',ind that in my judgment will
prohibit. I dc not believe that State
wide prohibition will prohibit. I be-
lieve local option prohibition will.
There is no controversy between the
Statewide prohibitionist and me as
to the evils of liquor. The expend-
iture of money for liquor that ought
to be used to pay debts, to increase
the means of earning livelihood, to
procure home comforts and to buy
bread, is. in my judgment indefen-
sible. The effects of liquor in unfit
ting men for productive work while
its hideous effects continue; the Gre
alton Of an unsuitable appetite for
more, the blasting Of the lives Of so
many who drink and the lives Of so
many more who love those who drink,
make its use the crowning evil Of to-
day.
We must take the world as we find
1t, but leave 1t better it we can. It
is not the dreams we have dreamed,
but the deeds we have done that
count. Local option has made 81
Of Of 43 counties prohibition (prac-
tically prohibition) territory and I
say we'll done local option. I will try
it again. The strides local option
prohibition has made are marvellous.
The two principal foes of prohibit
ion were GD a general Impression
that there would be immunity from
punishment for the violators Of this
law. (2) a fully developed thirst for
liquor. Now give 1t chance. There is
no immunity from punishment. That
foe is vanquished. The thirst must die
by degrees. Give it time and local
option prohibition will demonstrate
its effectiveness.
1 am not local optionist because
local option is "good Democratic
doctrine" Democratic doctrine is not
opposed to Statewide or nation wide
legislation. Nor do 7 beIievn q com =