Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1910-07-29
THE WAR AGAINST WHISKY.
Fighters Have Been Compelled t
Manoeuvre For Position.

mdHOCuNTC TUT FOSlliOIi'
Measured by the hard and fast rule
of absolute consistency on the liquor
issue. or any other issue, there Is no
candidate for governor that could show
an UNMARRIED record.
Mr.. Featherstone, when a candidate
for governor in 1898. advocated state
prohibition and opposed the state dis
pensary. He opposed the state dis
pensary as long as it existed-which Is
something to his credit at least-but
with thousands of other prohibition
lists he supported the local option idea
and the local option candidate in 1906
and 1907 as the means of destroying
the state dispensary.
Mr.. Richards was an ardent and per-
sistent advocate Of the state dispen-
sary. against both prohibition and To-
cal option. but in the dying days of the
state dispensary supported prohibition
in order to defeat local option. AZ
ter the death of the dispensary he be-
came an advocate Of prohibition and
has been at least consistent in never
supporting local option, except that he
voted for the Brice bill. In so doing
he was inconsistent with his present
attitude. favoring state prohibition
and opposing local option.
Mr.. Mcleod. both as a member OF
the house and the senate. supported
the state dispensary. In 1906, as a
member Of the senate. he voted fOI
the Raysor- Manning -dispensary-p -purifi-
cation bill. which was substituted In
that body for the Morgan local option
bill. to which 1t was antagonistic
avowedly and logically. During the
campaign of 1906. Mr.. Mcleod, an un-
opposed candidate for lieutenant gov
ernor, was understood to be in favor
of preserving the state dispensary, and
opposed to local option. Yet in an
lnouncing his candidacy for governor
this year Mr.. Mcleod came out strong
ly for local option.
Mr.. Rlease was a thick-and-thir
|
its life and made the most resourcefLI
and effective fight in the senate against
the Carey-Cothran bill. which was tC
seal the doom Of the dispensary by the
institution of local option. Now Mr.
Blease Is a local optionist, going ever
further in his advocacy Of options
than the rey-Cothran law went.
Mr.. Hyatt. though he says he was
born a Prihibtionst. in 1900 support
ed the state dispensary and it's candi-
date for governor.
What difference does 1t make? Times
change, conditions change. and mer
who think must change with them
John c. Calhoun supported protection
and opposed protection at different
times under different conditions. Ever
so steadfast a statesman as Martin F
Ansel ran for governor as an arden,
advocate of the state dispensary ir
Il9O2 and then turned around and rar
as q local optionist in 1906. His po-
sition in 1902 did not deter local op-
tionists from supporting him foul
years later.
AS a matter of fact, having vainly
tried to destroy the state dispensary by
straight fight for state prohibition
the Prohibtionists of South Carolina
with few exceptions, voted for loca
option candidates in 1906. The aboli.
ton Of the state dispensary was secur-
ed in 1907. The ProhibitiOnists were
then free to fight again for state pro-
hibition. In his really masterful speech
during the debate on the Carey-Coth-
ran bill in 1907, Mr.. Carey plainly de-
clared that he was a PrOhibitionist
that he was supporting local option a:
a means to an end and that when tina,
end was accomplished he expected to
fight for state prohibition. He repre-
sented the views Of the majority OF
Prohibitionists in the state.
On the other hand, Mr. Richards
at the same time as plainly defined his
attitude. After the abolition or the
state dispensary and its elimination
from the politics Of the state as an Is
sue, the former supporters of that sys-
tenn were compelled to take either
prohibition or local option stands, ol
remain mute observers Of public ar
fairs. Mr.. Richards took prohibition