The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-09-22
ETHICS.

itorial upon Ethics and Advertising. E"
IL Is In pleasant contrast to some of
the extreme and pharisaical utter
ances upon that subject which have
recently appeared In print. The cause
Of the discussion was the recent adver-
tising campaign OF the Local Option
League.
DIR. Geo. VI. Cromer. OF Newberry,
referring TO ;hGt campaign wrote: IF
the newspapers are ready to sell them
selves to the liquor interest, we are
gone"
The Greenwood Journal, comment
Ing upon DIR. Cromer's statement.
says:
And this 10 just what has been
done by every newspaper that accept
ed the advertising sent out from CO.
lumbia under the name OF the Local
Option League. They sold out to the
liquor houses OF the country. and, yet,
some of the papers that accepted this
advertising refuse to publish liquor
ads No wonder these papers find
themselves In a very awkward posi-
tion from which they are trying to
extricate themselves by attempted ex-
plantations, and I'm most instances by
justifying their course.
The only thing TO do, gentlemen.
In To make an open. candid confession.
state that you were caught and blind
ed by the LIQUOR business with it's mil
lions. You sold out to them. and gave
them an opportunity to come into our
state and seek to control the votes of
our citizens by subsidizing the press.
They could not find men who would
dare go before the people and address
them In the interest of the dirty liquor
business. but they sail under false col
ers and use you to enter the homes
OF our citizens"
The parallel to these two para
graphs Is found in the eighteenth
chapter OF Luke. wherein the Phari-
see said: God. thank Thee, that I
am not as other men are, -. or
even "a this publican"
The Baptist Courier said:
The advertisements contained
such matter as would generally have
been accepted had 1t been offered In
the form OF articles. Several OF our
papers carried these ads and several
refused them. The question we want
TO have discussed is this: Should these
advertisements have been refused on
ethical grounds?
I'VE do not want discussion Of
the papers that carried these ads.
There can be no doubt as TO the high
character OF several OF them (and,
40 far as we know. all OF them) that
accepted the matter. These papers
took the view that the other side
was entitled 20 hearing and IL the
other side wanted to pay for the priv
ilege. that was their right. The pa
pers which took this view were sim
cere. We believe that no one has the
right to question that. But 1t is in
order TO ask IL these papers were right
In the view they took. That there
must he another side To- the question
Is made certain not only by the crit
icisms that were heard. but by the
firm refusal which many OF the best
papers In The State gave to the ad-
vertisements. The question we raise is
not merely an academic one. II Is re-
lated TO the practical and moral in
terests OF the whole State. Most ev-
identity Il is not n question Of easy
solution. But on the other hand
Il II just as evident that both side,
of this question can not he right. II
these advertisements should have beer
refused on ethical grounds 1t was
morally wrong To accept them"
The Piedmont did not want and die
not solicit any OF this business II
made n clean. clcar-cut fight for pro.
hibitlOn. There was never room FOL
the slightest doubt as to this paper.
position.
Hut II printed these ads for th,
Local Option League. for which II re
ceived exactly the same rate 4
charges merchants for the sam,
amount OF space or as 1t charge,
the congressional candidates In the re
cent campaigr.
Was that right or wrong? Put tn,
boot on the other leg. Suppose
prohibltlonisi had carried an article I,
an anti-prohibiton paper. urging vot
ers To cast their ballots I'm favor o