The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-08-17
Strong Reply to Second Attempt to Hide The Blind Tiger Behind Dis
 pensary Cloak

 so strong and powerful public senti- ment If, with such backing, and under such favorable conditions. 1t failed In South Carolina it will fail wherever tried. Never again will this much vaunted plan for the solution of the liquor question be aided by such powerful influences, by more favorable environments. or support ed by more unanimous public senti- nent That 1t did fail, that after fair and full trial 1t was disowned. repudiat- ed and dlscredited in the state of its birth. was solely due to the inherent de- fleets of the system, to the fact that 1t was based upon an utter misconception Of the true functions of government, and that 1t was buttressed upon the indefen- sible theory that 1t was the duty of a state, under the specious pretext of the public good, to become dealer In an article which 1t recognized as legiti- mate subject of traffic and assume it's monopoly.
 Mir. Bowie consoles himself for
 the failure of the dispensary In
 south Carolina by the assertion
 that in no instance has 1t been suc-
 cceded by the saloon. If he had
 read the constitution of south Caro-
 lima he would have discovered that
 the sale of liquor by n saloon was
 prohibited. We respectfully invite
 his attention to Section II of Arti-
 cle of the constitution of that
 state, which will readily explain
 the reason why the fdispensnry hns
 not been succeeded by the saloon.
 Conditions in Alabama
 MT Bowie says that the conditions in Alabama are essentially different We deny this assertion The diapensary was established in South Carolina with out a submission to the vote of the Gtata-uyido arnhihtfion U . adopted in Alabama without submis sion to the vote of the people. Pro- hibition was adopted in Jefferson coun- ty in 1907 and took effect on the first day of January, 1908. Even before pro- hibition went into effect in Jefferson county a statewide prohibition law was enacted-in November, 19o7-and hence, even though the people of that county discovered that prohibition had proven to be failure, that 1t had in crea sed instead of minimizing the evils of the liquor traffic, the people were denied any opportunity to adopt any other system before the passage of the Parks local option law at the recent session of the legislature,
 Mir. Bowie says that the dispensary can not be adopted here, as it was in South Carolina, against the will of the people interested, and while this is true 1t is due to the Parks local option la and the Smith regulation bill, both of which have been the subject of such bit ter criticism by those who now pro- fess to favor the dispensary. If the counsels of those who are now wag ing this campaign for the restoration of dispensary-under the misleading name of the Saloon Opposition ague- had prevailed the people of Alabama would have been denied the option of expressing any choice by their ballot as to the method they prefer for the regulation or control of the liquor traf- fic.
 Dfspensary in Alabama
 MT Bowie asserts that the dispensary has proven a conspicuous success wher- ever adopted in this state. We challenge this statement. We know it was tried in Lauderdale county and It brought far less revenue than the saloon system it superseded, dispensed only the vilest and most poisonous liquors, and went out of existence without a single friend to mourn at it's obsequies.
 MT Bowie cites with pride dispensaries in Tuscaloosa and Walker counties as proof of the success of that system in 4 labama There have been rumors that those dispensaries were well managed and brought considerable revenue, but we have never yet seen any official statement of that fact We are convinced that an official and impartial examination of the operation of even those dispensaries would show that the revenues they brought to the state and county have been grossly exaggerated, and that they did not di- rpinish but increased the evils of the liquor traffic. They have not In Alabama where tried prevented the Illicit sale of liouor. It Is a well-known fact that while the dispensary was in operation in IAu- derdale county five or six blind tigers were openly conducted.
 Graft
 MT. Bowie. while conceding that the dispensary in South Carolina was infest- ed with graft, asserts that such condi- tions could not prevail in Jefferson coun- ty, because the dispensaries would be under the sole control of the three com missioners of Birmingham, and yet in South Carolina the purchasing agents and dispensers were selected by a board of control composed of men who were sup posed to be of high character and integ- Iity That graft existed was due to the inherent defects of the system.
 The same conditions which caused
 the dispenser and purchasing agent
 in south Carolina to yield to
 temptation and fall would exist In
 Alabama. In no other offices In the
 city of birmingham, if dispensaries
 we're created, would there be the
 same opportunities for graft, and
 Judging the future by the past, 1t
 is. idle to say that the dispenser or
 purchas agent In Alabama would
 prove less susceptible to the same
 temptatiOn that caused the down
 fall of his brother in South Caro-
 Iina.s
 MT. Bowie asserts that nearly every city in the United States has adopted ownership of waterworks and other public utilities, and that the tendency is to extend and not reduce the system of municipal ownership Even If his contention Is true we ar' at loss to understand how that coult be construed as an argument in favol of the dispensary. Does MT. Bowl' claim that dispensary is a public util ity, or Is as necessary to the pupli' edith and comfort as water and lights We have never before heard the mos ardent advocate of the diSpensary max such a contention.
 But even concedfng that graft coul' be eliminated from the operation Of dispensary, 1t is wrong in principle an' would not prevent the existence or Di1n' tigers the illicit sale of whisky, O relieve the lawless conditions now pre- vailing in this county.
 | In the decision which was rendered D. | the United States circuit court or ap peals in apointing receivers to vim up the affairs of the liquor monopol of South Carolina, that court held tha the framers of the constitution of tn United States never conceived that sovereign state could engage in tn l liuuor business and becomefa trader b l buying and selling an article of com mon traffic in competition with tn citizens of the country. The cour questioned therefore. whether the stat was exercising a governmental proroga