Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1912-12-06
Question of Taste, Law, Etc.

with the seizure and release of liquor
belonging to the Shriners in Columbia
last week and the failure to seize IL
quor belonging to the Elks are more
or less interesting, from various stand
points, and we would like people to
read the whole story without prejudice
and get the benefit of such lessons as
may be derived.
The thing that looms up biggest
maybe, is that all that liquor was
deemed necessary for the purpose Of
having a good time" but that 1t Is not
our purpose to discuss now now, as a
subject of equal interest is the man
ner in which the law seems to have
been warped for considerations of
politics." and the exceeding bad taste
of those who may have been guilty Of
undertaking to criticise the governor
in connection with the matter.
The law as to liquor shipments un-
der the interstate commerce regula-
tions is plain. Any citizen has the
right to buy liquor purely for personal
use, and the state has no right to
touch 1t; but the state does not have
to take the word OF the shipper on the
question Of personal USE" Where
man gets liquor too frequently in
quantities greater than he can use, the
state has a right to inquire what is be-
coming of it, 1t has been settled
clearly that he has ne right to order
liquor in the name Of another than
himself, and If there is good reason to
believe that the liquor is intended for
other than purely personal use, it is
liable to seizure and confiscation.
Now anybody knows that Mr.. Gres-
ham did not want all that liquor for
his personal use and when the con-
stable asked Governor Blease what to
do about II, there was nothing to do
but tell MIN to seize It. Had he done
otherwise he would have been in clear
violation Of the law, and about the
only justification he could have had,
would have been desire not to dis
appoint the Shriners. That, Of course,
would have been no justification at all.
The only alternative he had was the
one to which he resorted, the putting
of the matter up to the attorney gen.
erals office.
AS 70 whether the liquor Of the
Elks was liable to seizure there is
more room for question: It appears
that the liquor was consigned to the
Elks and marked for personal use.
There was no subterfuge about 1t one
way or the other, and whether the
liquor of the Elks was liable to seizure
or not, it was certainly less liable to.
seizure than was the liquor consigned
to Gresham, and when the attorney
generals Office was willing to release
the Gresham liquor, we do not see why
anybody should go to 1t about the
liquor of the Elks.
But behind it all, there appears to
be something else, and since the gov
ernor has been criticised adversely for
alleged discrimination as 1t was, the
probability is that the criticism would
have been still more pointed if he had
released the Gresham liquor in the
first instance on his own motion with
out putting it up to the office Of the at
torney general. AS likely as not he
would have been accused Of having
seized the liquor merely for the pur-
pose of making the Shriners realize his
power and compelling them to beg.
And also, we see, or think we see
that the governor probably got some
satisfaction out of the idea of making
the attorney generals office stultify
itself. He knew that the Gresham
liquor was liable to seizure and he
knew also that the attorney generals
office knew it. He did not believe,
however, that the attorney generals
office would have the nerve to stand
to the law in the case, regardless Of
the thirst of such a strong aggregation
of presumed friends, and although the
governor has indulged in some pretty
hot talk, we have an idea that he Is
also enjoying a good laugh,
After all has been said about the
whole matter that could be said, we
are inclined to think that the Shriners
or whoever it was that made so much
fuss, would have done much better if,
after having secured the release of
their liquor no matter how, they had
kept their mouths shut and kept the
affair out of the papers.