The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1910-12-14
CONTRIBUTED.
DISH0N0RABLE ACTS?
Who Is the State =?

Who Is the State ?
The State Of South Carolina Persecutes
Its Agents and Partners in Crime
Remarkable Fidelity Of the States En-
pIoyees Fidelity to Employers Inter-
ests Rewarded by the Most Cruel Per-
secution.
Our usually fair and always able, con-
temporary, the Yorkville Enquirer, seems
to be at sea on the dispensary question.
Certainly 1t takes a different view of the
situation as seen blythe Press and Banner.
To be perfectly fair with our brother ed
itor, we copy his remarks entire. as
follows:
The Abbeville Press and Banner takes
the position that il Black was guilty OF
conspiracy, his partner was the state Of
South Carolina and that it is wrong for the
state Of South Carolina to punish its
| partner in crime.
According to the Press and Banner ut
| (the state) took its share Of the profits and
then charged customers at the dispensary
an increased price for liquor, which in
creased price not only made the state
whole, but which actually gave it a great
profit over and above the actings and
doings OF it's own officers" This sounds
like funny talk to US.
Who Is the state Of South Carolina, If 1t
Is not those people who we're pillagedp
Surely, II the Press and Banner were
running q store and would find clerk
overcharging' customers for goods by
sanding the sugar and watering the vim
egar and putting the profits thus acquired
in his pocket it would make fuss. II 1t
did not make fuss the customers would
as soon as they found it out and they
would hold the proprietor responsible,
But are we going to cease Furnishing
anybody because others who should have
been punished, escaped2 Then there will
be no more punishment, and no more
1. security to life and property. Every man
will have to look for protection to his own
right arm.
But we have always been pnzzled at the
attitude OF the Press and Banner, on this
question anyway It used to be one Of the
staunchest defenders Of the dispensary
even In the days when pillage was In Is
greatest prosperity. Surely the attitude
that 1t takes now Is not to be interpreted
as explaining It's position then.
We cannot get rid OF the idea that II
there has been any pillaging 1t was the
people who were pillaged, and the whole
object Of our laws, is to punish and prevent
such pillaging.
The State monopolized the whiskey bus
iness in South Carolina. 1t, whether law
fully or not, engaged In what might be
termed mercantile business, or trade,
with it's customers.
To conduct that business the State en-
ployed an army of perhaps five hundred
persons occupying positions ranging all
the way from bottlers up to buyers and
sellers Of the liquor. ....
The buyers of the liquor no doubt paid
to distillers hundreds Of thousands of
dollars in excess Of the regular cost price
of such liquor. This fact was notorious
for years before the closing Of the dis
fpensary. Whether in solemn form or not,
the fact Of rascality was recognized
The State did 80 by winking at or by shut
ting its eyes and ears to facts which were
known to every intelligent citizen. AS
long as the State was receiving excessive
prices for the liquor and filling its treas
ury with ill-gotten gains, no protest was
made by the State, until after the dispen-
sary was closed.
While we have not the figures at hand.
We believe the dispensers paid ex-
cessiveprices for liquor, and then, as the
States agent, added not only the excessive
cost to the selling price, but actually
charged the regular per cent Of profit on
the higher COST
The state Of South Carolina after having
permitted this rascality to go on until the
dispensers had robbed its customers and
put into the State treasury a profit on
their Ill doing would now when the dis
pensary Is closed and when the money
making Is stopped-undertake to wrench
from their agents In crime, their share Of
the profits. This, too, after the customers
at the dispensary had reimbursed the
State for every cent Of the overcharge.
1t will not be forgotten that no one has
yet charged that the State ever lost one
cent in the buying and selling of liquor
We believe the big thief now charges the
little thieves with stealing $4,000 from
the distillers, or other liquor sdealers, In
the matter Of overcharge, which stealing
was made good to the State in the exces-
sive prices which it made against its GUS
toners. The dispensers made good
to the State all their alleged theft by
over-charging customers to that extent
The State added the usual ten or fifteen
per cent profit on the excess cost OF
liquors. The State thus actually made q
profit on the wrong doing Of Its partners
tits believed that by the system of re-
bates the State of South Carolina paid out
some $SOO,OOO more than legitimate price
for liquor. The customers at the dispen.
sary paid back every cent Of this sum out
of their own pockets. The State admits,
and charges, that it's partners made $780,
900 in the transaction. The State has