The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1912-01-24
Ab5e7iIIe DisgeDsa1y Bill Killed in the
Horse BY One Majority
Josh ASHLEY AGAINST IT
\ General Bill Nav Be introduced
Later Providing for Dispensary
Elections in All Counties That May
Want to Vote on the Lquo, Ques-
ton Again.

On Thursday, tie House defeated
ty one vote Mr.. Moore's bill seeking
an election for Abheville County for
tie restoration Of the dispensary in
that county. The vote was 90 to 40
or a bill that had been unfavorably
! reported. There are several coun-
ties that are trying to hare these
elections on the i!4uor question and
tie prospect now is that general
bill viii bepresented looking to some
provision for such elections.
There was spirited discussion OF
the bill, that had come over from
last year, but It failed. The same
icea Will be taken Up in the pending
bills to provide for such elections in
Orangeburg Dorcht ster, Berkeley,
Calhoun and other counties. There
was a real live debate on the bill to
provide for an election in Abbeville
County on the question Of establish
ing a dispensary foI the sale Of al
ccholic liquors in sad county.
Mr.. Moore made a strong and fo-ci-
Bile argument for his bill. He in
sisted that it was local bill and his
pcople wanted the county dispensary.
His county, he argued, was not in IA
vcr of prohibition, although the rec
q showed it. This was because or the
restricted vote and the requirement
a. to certificates. He knew What his
people wanted ami held that his
comfy could have no election except
BY special elections. Mr.. Moore said
there was no reaso o1 why Mr.. Ashley
Should be so solicitous about his
county. If the Anderson people
wanted liquor from Abbeville they
would have to cone for it; it could
not be sent.
Mr.. Magiil said lie must differ with
A!r. Moore and based his objection
eDtirclv on the ground that a. special
law was wrong ard a general Act
should be passed. Nr. Moore held
that under the general law there was
ro provision for sue. election as was
sought.
NIr. J. Beltcn Watson was strong
IN his opposition to the bill.
Mr.. McCravE, Of Pickens. was op-
pcsed to the sale cit liquor and was
heartily opposed to the bill and ar
gued strongly agains: the proposition
- take any chances Of Abbeville SELL
ing LIQUOR. As 10 the lack of en-
fcrcement OF the prohibition laws,
the best people n many counties
were often to blame and he begged
the people to hello enforce the law
and then lhere would be better
feeling.
On the motion TO strike out the
enactiag words Of the bill the vote
stood: Aye Ito Kill the bill; nay
(for the bill:)
Yeas-Speaker Smith, Arnold,
Ashley, Bethea, Bowers, Boyd, Brice,
p H. Brown, Butler, Cary, Charles,
Courtney, John II. Daniel, W. L.
Daniel. Dcbson, DuEose, Drlmmond,
Earle. E. C. Edwards, Evans. Gasque,
Harrison, Hill, Hines, Hunter, Jones,
Netchin. Kibler, League, McCravey,
Mcqueen, Magill, Mansfield, Meares,
Miller, Minis, Mitchum, Mower, Mich
olson, Osborne, Pesues, Reaves, RI
LEY, Scott, z. L. S,luler, Stevenson,
Watson, WhiscnAnt, Wingard,
W'yche-5o.
Navs-ayer, Bsskins, Belser,
Roolcer, Bowman. T. P. Brown,
ing. Hryan, Dick, Dixon, Doar, Isaac
Edwards, Fultz, Gilbert, Hamilton,
Hopkins, Horlbeck, Hutto, Irby,
Jackson, James, K!rvin. Lee, Leland,
| McKeown, Manuel Moore. Motto,
Z. A. Odom, ". P. Odom, Paulllng,
Peoples, Richardson. Sawyer, saye,
searson, Singleton, D. L. Smith, *.
p Smith, Stanley Tison, Tobias,
Todd, Turnbull, Wander Horst. Wells,
Williams, Willis, Xoumans--49.
Pairs-Erckmann and Connor.
The vote was so close that poll
! o. the House was ordered, but showed
70 difference. The parliamentary
clincher was then applied.
| -r<-