The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1912-06-25

been so little, appreciated tnat a leSls-
lature of his own State could humill-
ate him without excuse, with defeat.
Mr.. Thurmond further stated, HE
(speaking of Jones) was strong ad-
vocate of the dispensary and is now a
local optionist." Let's see: Jones voted
for prohibition, see house journal, 1891
page 203, and again, same house jour-
nal, page 227. Jones voted for county
prohibition, see house journal, 1891,
page SIS; voted for the Roper and
Childs bill, which provided for State
wide prohibition, see house journal,
1892, pages 225, 312, 314 and 324. Jones
voted against the dispensary law when
it was first and originally passed. The
house had passed what was known as
the Roper and Childs bill, Statewide
prohibition, for which Jones had vot-
ed all the way through, and it was sent
to the senate. It was amended in the
senate and the dispensary law was
sent back to the house as the amend
ment to the Roper and Childs bill.
Jones voted against the amendment,
which was the dispensary law, see
house journal, 1892, page 573. When
did Jones turn from being a prohibi-
ZIONIST, as proven by every one of his
votes, and as proven by his vote
against the original dispensary law,
to a dispensary man? Was it when he
wanted to be promoted to associate
justice of the supreme court, and
when the dispensary people had abso-
lutte control of the government and
legislature, which was to elect the as
sociate Justice? Go a step further:
When the fight was being made in the
legislature to keep a dispensary from
being forced into Marlboro county,
Jones voted to force the dispensary in
Marlboro, without allowing the people
to vote as to whether they wanted it
or not, thus depriving them of local
self-government, see house journal,
1893, page 465. He also voted against
local option and to force the dispen-
sary in dry counties, see house journal
1888, pages 467 and 46S. The impor-
tance of this vote is so great, in view
of his recent political somersaults,
that l beg leave to quote it here in full,
see house journal, 1898, page 467: Mr..
Buist moved to amend by making the
following section Al: (the house then
having under consideration the dis
pensary law: "No part of this act
shall apply to any town in this State
that prohibits the sale of liquor under
charter. Also, all counties in which
the sale of liquor is prohibited by
statutory law; Provided, that at gen.
eral election, two-thirds of the regis
tered voters of said counties express
by ballot a desire for the establish
ment of a. dispensary therein, then, in
that event a dispensary may be estab-
lished within the limits of some
town or city within that county" Mr..
Nettles moved to lay the amendment
on the table The yeas and nays were
requested, and the first man recorded
as voting in the affirmative and
against this amendment, which pro-
hibited the putting Of dispensaries in
dry towns and dry counties, and which
gave to the people of those towns and
counties the privilege of local option,
is Ira B. Jones, speaker. When did he
become a local optionist, after he
could not force liquor on dry counties.
Having voted for Statewide prohibi-
ton all the way through, he then
Topped over to the dispensary, and
then voted every crack to force the
dispensary into prohibition territory.
which had always been SO called, dry
counties" When he Topped from pro-
hibition, he double somersaulted and
out dispensaried the dispensary's dad
dy, as is shown here by his record.
Now, did Mr.. Thurmond, when he
wrote this letter, know Jones record,
or did he attempt to deceive?, for
Jones certainly was not "a strong ad-
vocate of the dispensary,' and he GER
tainly was not local optionist when
he had right to vote and give local
option to the people; but he voted to
deprive them of it.
When did his conversion to local op-