The Pickens sentinel. (Pickens, S.C.) 1911-2016, 1915-07-08
LETTERS FROM the PEOPLE
Editor Pickens Sentinel:

Editor Pickens Sentinel:
The twentieth century faces
no more serious question than
. that of the liquor traffic. 1t is
not my purpose to marshal an
array of statistics showing the
well-understood relation of the
saloon to. poverty and crime. I
shall not attempt to picture the
wrecked lives and ruined homes
for which the traffic is respon-
sible, nor shall l. tell you how it
is intrenched in our great cities.
From these strategic points of
American civilization it reaches
out to corrupt and dominate pol
itics. 1t is undermining the very
foundation of our government,
but even this l shall not discuss.
Examine the question from any
standpoint and it demands our
thoughtful consideration; ;but the
most important question at pres
ent is, How is that traffic to be
controlled?'
This is to be done by pro-
hibitive law. The discussion of
this theme falls naturally into
two parts, according to it's duplex
presentation: first, as civil law,
either existing or proposed; and
second, as a moral precept. These
two aspects are logically quite
distinct, and in some respects are
antagonistic. Yet in ordinary
discussions, at the hands of both
friends and foes, they are con-
stantly confused. One rarely
hears or reads an argument
against prohibition which keeps
clearly in view the distinction
between a civil statute and a
precept of morals. One rarely
hears or reads an argument in
favor of prohibition which does
not confessedly draw it's strong
est plea from moral considera-
tions. Prohibition comes into
religious assemblies and church
courts, demanding that it receive
their sanction and furtherance
as thing of almost religious
obligations in some cases even
seeking ecclesiastical endorse
ment for a political party having
prohibition as it's watchword.
This state of things show a most
lamentable confusion of ideas,
resulting in much illogical and
unChristian augmentation.
1t is clear that the essential
question is solely one Of public
good. The morality of the ques-
ton is accidental. Of course,
modern society universally rec.
ognized, however it may fail al
times in applying the broad prin
ciple that open immortality is
adverse to the public good. Ant
yet, after all, the liquor law.
have not been nor could they bt
enacted because the use or abuse
of liquor is immoral, BUT be
cause the abuse of it is injurious
to mankind and society. If such
| abuses did not threaten the pub
| lie peace and create enormous
burdens of taxation for the sup
port of courts, prisons, reforma.
tories and asylums; if it were
not the fruitful mother of crime
! if the immortality of this abuse
We're unattended by any materi-
al, phySicat or social i'll cOnSe,
quences to the jeopardizing of
the public good, there would be
no ground for interference by
by the state. But such condi-
tions do not exist in South Caro-
lima, and in order for her to up.
hold her dignity and majesty it
, behooves her to intercede.
Its laws against various indie,
cencies and moral evils are made
and enforced, not for the reason
that such things are wicked, but
because moral corruption entails
social damage. To sell or drink
whiskey might be as wicked as
the objectionable sin, but if nc
social evil arose therefrOm the
civil law would issue no warrant
against it. 1t is, then, the fact
that social damage attends the
abuse of liquor, that crime anC
violence are multiplied by it
which furnishes the state with
it's justifying reason for inter
ference. Such reason, let it be
noted, would abide and demand
stationary action in the presence
of any threatened danger, tho
the procuring cause or instru
ment of such danger were desti