The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1916-06-21
The Two QUART ACT.
GOVERNOR EXPLAINS WHY HE
DID NOT SIGN BILL.
Chief Executive Says That He HAS
Postponed Action Until Decision OF
Court Is Made ON Present Statute.

ielter lnqulrlng about the two-quart
act, Gov. Manning wrote as follows:
In the beginning permit me to
state that 1 am very glad indeed that
your interest in the administration
of affairs of government and in the
enforcement of law in South Carolina
Is such that you feel free to write me
In reference to the two-uuart bill
am glad to have the opportunity to
advise you that my refusal to sign
this bill at the present time is purely
In the interest Of temperance i'm South
Carolina, and with all regard for the
views of it's advocates and with great
admiration for their high purpose and
fine service.
You will recall that the legislature
at it's 1915 session passed what is
known as the gallon-a-month act.
This same legislature passed an act
referring the question Of prohibition
or local option to the voters of South
Carolina in a. special election held in
II
September, 1915.
1T has been claimed by some that
there are constitutional defects in the
gallon-a-month law. AS the head of
the executive department of the State
would not presume to pass on this
question. That is a rcatter for the
judicial department.. My duty is to
direct the enforcement Of this act SO
long as it remains on the statute
books unchanged by legislative enact
ment or judicial decision.
Il have been informed that this
law is now being tested in the courts.
and the friends Of prohibition having
knowledge Of this action introduced
during the 1916 session Of the leg
islature bill intended to reenact this
gallon "A month law in such a manner
as to leave no question as to its con-
stitutionality. When this bill was in
troduced and finally passed through
both houses Of the general assembly,
good many changes had been made
in 1t and a number Of amendments
tackled on. In fact, the act as finally
passed was widely different, 1 am told,
from the bill originally introduced.
When this act came to me for ap-
proval or disapproval, discussed
the entire matter with the authors OF
the bill, together with some of the
leading prohibitionists of the Stats.
In addition to the advice and counsel
gained from these gentlemen who are
Very much interested in the cause OF
prohibition. received q large number
of letters from citizens in various
parts Of the State, urging me for
various reasons not to approve this
act
This condition confronted me: The
gallon-a-month act was before the
courts and this new act if signed,
would automatically repeal the gal
lon-a-month act; and in case it was
attacked and set aside by the courts,
We would be left without any legal
limitation upon the amount of LIQUOR
that might be imported.
1T seemed to me. therefore, that
in view of the information that had
been placed before me, the highest
interests Of the State would best be
served were 1 to hold this act in
abeyance rather than take chances
For these and other reasons which I
deem inadvisable to make public at
the present time, 1 deemed it in the
interest of temperance and in fair
ness to the people of the State that
the twO-quart act be not signed at
present, but that it be held here pend
ing the outcome of the legal fight on
the gallOn-a- month act. The two
quart act has not been vetoed, but is
merely held in this office as above
stated.
Il have written you frankly in ref
erence to the matter and trust you
will understand and appreciate my
position. The principle of law enforce
ment is very dear to my heart and in
my opinion is Of paramount impor-
Etance in South Carolina at the present
time. l am doing all in my power to
see that the present laws are enforced
and shall continue this policy with
unabated vigOr and without compro-
mise so long as am governor.
| "Since the State has Snolxan CO
clearly for prohibition, it becomes the
duty Of Democrat and certainly that
of public official to accept the ex-
preston of the will of the people as
the policy of the State. 1t seems to
me, therefore, that we have had our