The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1917-02-06

Evan, he said, had made a medical
argument which was out of tune with
the voice of the medical profession
and besides, it was better that a few
people should die than that a great
numOer should be poisoned.
Col Front berg, Of Charleston, asked
Mr.. Harrison what would become OF
W.ne Tor sacramental purposes.
Ready to ReiCrm Christ.
Craze juice could De used by the
cnuryaes. il necessary" said Mr.. Har-
:son tEe ursed that liquor was d
{! a.., oy.l wa;cn rU:ned lives, destroy
Cd homes and HiIed asyiums and pen
..;cGt.ar.es with is victims.
ior NGaadt OF Express Go.
Mr.. Furman l.. Long Of GreenViile
said lie oLG not desire to discuss the
bill at any length at this time He
was not in favor Of liquor The gal
Ion-a-month law was abominabIe, ana
was serving to make the express CON-
panies rich; but the proper thing for
Iae legislature to do was for every
member to secure medical advice, and
if it was impossible for people to do
without liquor, then let drug stores
handle it under strict regulations. The
whole proposition was one of vital I'M
Lortance and should be acted upon
only after mature deliberation, he
said.
Mr.. R. P. Searson. Jr, Of Barnwen,
opposed the bill. He was not a pro-
hibitionist, but personally he was
teetotaler. He was in favor of tenn
perance, and was standing here in the
interest of expediency. He had seen
the misery which the use Of liquor had
caused, and there was no sincerer
temperance man in South Carolina
than he was, but he wanted to sound
warning.
EnslaVing People.
There were occasions when liquor
was of benefit, and the legislature had
no more right to say that a man
should not diet in a certain way than
to say that he should not rest in a
certain manner. Sumptuary laws
could easily go too far. He believed
in police control over the liquor traffic
in the interest of temperance and good
government, but he was not in favor
OF a Statewide prohibition measure.
1t was a fact recognized by science,
he said. that the wearing OF corsets
had injured the health Of women, but
the legislature would hardly go 80 far
as to prohibit the wearing of corsets.
Upon the same principle, he believed
that the Richey bill should be killed.
Temperance and expediency were the
main things to be considered. he con-
cluded.
What the People Want.
Mr.. ]. Howard Moore, Of Abbeville,
said the evils OF whiskey we're admit
ted by all, but the question before the
Legislature was the best way to handle
it The people had never voted for
the kind OF prohibition as set forth in
the Richey measure, he urged, in re-
viewing the various liquor elections
which had been held. Mr.. Moore was
in favor of extending the present law
so as to allow the shipment of 60
pints OF beer per month in lieu Of a
gallon OF whiskey, in accordance with
tie terms Of the r easure which ne
had nro1osed. This question should
he handled in a practical wav.. be
urged. Conditions we're bad enough.
now. he said. but if the Richey meas
rre should go through, conditions
vould he intolerable. The best solu-
tion OF the whole matter, he thought,
vas to allow the sale OF light wines
and beers. and gradually cut out
louor but an iron-clad measure at this
time would be OF incalculable injury,
he concluded
Further debate was adjourned until
noon tomorrow, upon motion OF Mr..
Thomas P Cothran, of Greenville.
The test vote came on Representa-
tive Searson's motion to strike out the
enacting words, the house refusing to
do so by the emphatic majority OF
IS to 2S.
Against Prohibitios.
Those who voted for Mr.. Searson's
motion, which was to kill the Richev
bill. were: Representatives Bailey,
Barnwell, Carter. Clyburn. Crews. G.
3. Davis. J. E. Davis, E. J. Dennis.
Duncan. Fripp. Frornherg. Hamblin,
Hemphill, keenan,, J. o. Kelly, Lam
ford, Lesesne. McCants, Mcmillan.
Mishoe. Moore, Passailaigue, Pickens,
Seabrook. Searson. Senseney. Whaley,
Young-2S.
Those voting against Mr. Searson's