The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1910-12-14
with the stuff has failed to make a full

with the stuff has failed to make a full
and honest return of the States money.
Thisstoo, in the fact that the Govern
ment paid to the manager Of million |
dollar annual business the munificent |
salary Of $4OO a year. Is there a record |
anywhere which Is superior to this2 Who |
ever hired five hundred men, scattered in |
every County Of the State to handle mon-
ey where there was not defaulters?
Our good brother asks:
who is the State Of South Carolina, If
1t Is not those who were pillaged"
We contend that the State pillaged its
customers, and we contend that the State
wi nked at the pillaging by its agents, and
never protested until the business was
closed.
We deny in the strongest language per-
missible in parliamentary terms, that
customers at the dispensary are the State
It is true that they are Of the State, but
they are no more the State of South Ca1-
olina than are the people who never drank
drop Of the States liquor. Customers
at the dispensary were no better citizens
and had no superior rights over those who
never darkened the door of dispensary.
We repeat it, and say again most positive
ly, that customers Of the dispensary are
not the State Of South Carolina, and we
believe the Yorkville Enquirer to be the
first, if not the only paper in the State to
make such claim for the liquor drinking
customers at the dispensary. - So
I We say again and again that guzzlers Of
the dispensary whiskey are no more the
State than are the thousands of respecta-
BILE and sober men who did not patronize
the institution. ...
It was estimated when the doors
Of that institution were open in Able
vile County that two-thirds Of the
customers at that institution were negroes
Would the Yorkville Enquirer maintain
that the negro patrons Of the dispensary
are Abbeville County? The editor Of that
paper Is an elder in the A. R. P. Congrega-
tion at Yorkville. In Abbeville there is an
A. R. P. Congregation OF, white people.
Would that Elder Grist count us as moth
ing and magnify the negro customers Of
the dispensary to such an extent as to
regard them as Abbeville County, They
are part OF Abbeville County-nothing
more-nothing less. They are not
Abbeville County. And we scarcely think
that neither the negro nor the white GUS
toners, nor all combined would have the
assurance that would warrant them In
saying, II am the State" .!
Customers at the dispensary are no
more the State than would be the mobil-
lied law-breakers, or an aggregation of
the worshippers Of our Lord.
The esteemed Enquirer did not tell us
what it thought Of the States act In re-
pudiating fifty per cent Of the State house
bonds; |,t sl ~ y
The Enquirer did not refer to the States
trick with bills receivable" whereby It
took up the 8. J. q. r. r. bonds, and fhen
hadthe courts to declare the bills receiv-
able to be unconstitutional.
The Enquirer failed to give Its opinion
Of the way the money borrowed from Wes-
ley, $3.50, ,OO0) is held without payment,
which money was borrowed to make
advantageous settlement Of Blue Ridge
obligations.
The Enquirer offers no defense Of the
States action in scaling past due claims
of the State officers to fifty cents in the
dollar. ...
The Enquirer does not explain the JUS
tice OF the act Of the State in refusing
Wesley to have his claims adjusted
in the Courts.
We have heard no deliverance from the
Enquirer on the refusal ef the State to
allow citizen to 90 into Court to have
settled alleged damages to his land by
Clemson College.
The Enquirer has made no deliver
ance, as far as we have seen, on the
Legislatures vandalism In ordering the
Attorney General to tear down the Au-
gusta dam. The tearing down Of that
dam would be equivalent to the destruc-
ton Of the city Of Augusta, when every
Industrial wheel must stop; when stock
holders must be ruined, and when the
thousands of industrious laborers must be
thrown out of employment, to seek bread
and homes they know not where. This,
too, after the State Of South Carolina had
solemnly and formally given its consent
thirty years ago to the erection Of the
dam.
Speaking for ourself, we do not believe
that there Is a member Of the Supreme
Court that would lend his countenance to
the proposed rascality.
But, suppose the Supreme Court, did
act unanimously in deciding to tear down
the dam, we have that faith in the U. S.
Court, which whould make the State act
honestly for at least one time.
While the Legislature has repeatedly
done things that would disgrace a citizen,
yet we do not recall where the Courts
have not been honest. They are honest
today, and will not now put the seal Of
their own condemnation by sustaining
the effort to tear down the Augusta dam