Newspaper Page Text
TILLMAN ANSWERS CROMER.
Discusses The Legal Side of the Question-Deprecates Return of Factionalism-Not Afraid to Meet his Enemies. United States Senator B. R. Tillman -as sent the following reply to Dr. 4eorge B. Cromer's last letter: The Hon. Geo. B. Cromer, Dear Sir: I was absent from the state a few days after the Anderson meet :ng and since my return home Sun 3ay I have been quite unwell, hence delay in answering your "rejoinder," which appeared in the newspapers of 0he i8th. I have read what you say care -ullv and with all due respect it seems to me you are begging the question. I quoted Pope's couplet from memory it is lucky that I misquoted it. vse you would have had little to re -ply -o. but I cannot agree with you that I "missed" either the "sense" or "the spirit." I charged existing conditions in dis pensary matters to mal-administra zion and to legislation in changing the law, and depended upon the last line of my quotation to sustain my contention: "That law which is best adminis --ered. is best." Of course your quotation must be verba:im and it is even stronger in -Sustaining my argument than my own recollection of the words, for if "what ever form of government." an auto cracv, limited monarchy or a repub Ie, is better than any other when it is best administered, it seems to me that you must be wrong in claiming "if t1here :s inherent vice in the law tlf. effictent administraton of the law can not cure it." , We are not discussing that phase at all. You class -the dispensary sys tem as inherently vicious as contra distinguished with the licensed sale of liquor, and the prohibition of its -sale at all. Accordng to Pope, as -you quote him, "whatever" form the law mig. take as among these -three would be best if it is "administered best." That is all I have ever con tendeu. I 'believe the dispensary sys -tem can be better administered than can prohibition, and I am opposed to .any form of license, high or low, be -cause i-t -has the "inherent vice" oi -noney making iby the individual, and this, to my mind, is the most deadly -poison arising out of the whiskey traffic. I hardly think you will de ny that the dispensary law. fearless l- and honestly adininistered as it ~as originally framed, would be be-t :te.r than prohibition not enforced. However, it was pot this part ot -.your rejoinder which gave me any :oncern, because it almost -answered :ztself, and I only mention it inci dentally, as I am answering you. The point which I wish to press on -our at te:'tion. and that of those who my be interested in our discussion dii a questionl. is the "lame and nmpo)tent con-clusion" at which vou ar -rive in your discussionl of the dis pensary rrom a legal standpoint. Y ou :are-a lawvyer. and an able one, while I am only a layman. but your reading musTdt have been limited or your rea som~nng powers at fault -to rest your case, as you appear to do. on the claim that the prohibitionists are sustained :hrouvghout in their views by the de -isions of the supreme court. You quote the decision in the case of the State vs Aiken. 42d S. C. page 231: "That liquor in its nature is danger ous to the morals. good order, health and safety of the people. etc." and then you say: "Note then the lan guage in which youl define the attitude of the prohibitionists is exactly the language in which the supreme court defines the attitude of the law on the subject. That decision fixes the point of view from which the state is bound to regard the question; and from that point o-f view the state may take con arol of -the traffic to police it, but not to profit by it." You give your own interpretation to the language used by the court, but to me it is altogether without any warrant, except as your individual opinion, and in direct opposition to the entire line of thought and reason ng of the judge who wro~te the ooinionf in he State vs Aiken. I quote from the same decision, page 236: "The act shows that the legislature ad in view the protection of the ,orals, good heahLh and safety of state' in dealing with this ques around the sale of liquor. The cor missioner is to be an abstainer from intoxicants. The liquor is to be test ed by the chemist and declared to be pure. The liquor is to be sold only by the package, which cannot be opened nor drunk where sold. The sales can only be made in daytime. Persons cannot be appointed on the county board of control who are addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors. No person can be appointed a county dispenser who has ever been adjudged guilty of violating the law relating to intoxicating liquors, nor who is keeper of a restaurant or a place of public amusement, nor who is addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. "The county dispenser shall exe cute a bond in the sum of $3,000. upon which suit for damages may be brought for a violation of the provis ions of the act by a wife, child, parent. guardian, employer, or other person. A majority of the votes in a town ship may prevent the establishment of a dispensary. The county dispen ser shall take an oath therein pre scribed. A printed or written request must be presented for permission to purchase. The sale shall not be made to a minor, a person intoxicated, a I person in the habits of drinking to excess, nor to a person unless known to the dispenser. It prevents the es tablishment of club rooms where liquors are used. One of the benefi cial results of the law is brought about by selling only for cash." In the face of this language how can you declare that "the state may take control of the traffc to police it, but not to profit by it?" On page 240 Swefind this: "The judiciary," says -Ar. Justice 'McGowan, in the case of town coun cil vs Pressley. 33d S. C.. page 36. "cannot run a race of opinions upon points of r:ght reason and competency with the law making power." Th%:n 'Mr. Justice Gary added: "The state has a right, through its own officers in fact, it is its primary duty-to en force its police regulations, which right inheres in government itself and is paramount to any right inher ent in citizenship. But, referringto the foregoing dbjection as matter of facE. it would not be as efficiently en frced by private individuals, because there would be the constant tempta tion to make as large profit as pos sible." But referring to the foregoing ob jection, (that the same results would be accomplished by allowing private individuals to carry on the traffic) as a matter of fact, it would not be as efficiently enforced by private in dividuals. because there would be the constant temptation to make as large profits as possible." Further on Jus tice Gary adds: "The dispensary act itself is an outgrowth of a dissatis faction on the part of the people with the manner in which the police oer, when delegated. was abused. (by permitting those who obtained the licenses to make as much money as possiible.) .gain. I desire to direct your at tention to the decisien of the supreme c~urt of the United States in the case f Vance vs W. A. Vandercock Co.. 70 U. S.. page 447 in which the con stitutionality of the dispensary law was upheld by our court of last re sort. "It is argued, as the state law ere in question does not forbid, but on the contrary authorizes, the sale of intoxicants within the state: hence, it is not a police law, therefore not nacted in the exercise of the police pover of the state, and consequently loes not operate on the sale ot original pakages within the state, but thc premise upon which these arguments rest is purely arbitrary and imaginary From the fact that the state law per. mits the sale of liquor subject to par ticular restrictions and only upon enumerated conditions, it does not follow that the law is not a manifesta tion of the police power of the state. The plain purpose of the act 01 Congress having been to allow state regulations to operate upon the sale of original packages of intoxicants coming from other states, it wvould destroy its obvious meaning to con strue it as permitting the state laws Io attach to and control the sale on! oin case the states absolutely forbade sales of liquor, and not to apply in case the states determined no restict or regulate the same.' How then, my dear sir, can you seriously contend that the "state -., tak cntrol of the traffic to police it. but not co profit by it :Our own court in the strongest lan guage maintains the contrary, the supreme court of the United States. with the law before it, sustained it notwithstanding this feature; yet merely because you feel ~That the prof it feature is an inherent vice of the dispensary law and its legality. I must ask how can you seriously argue such a point, and how can you lend your great ir.fhience and intellect to mislead those who are ignorant? You brush aside as wholly unwor thy of considerati-on the statistics which I advanced to show that pro hibi:Ion does not prohibit, and that drunkenness is not as great in Char leston, with all its blind tigers, as it is in prohibition cities of like size. You dismiss these with a wave of the hand because they make the peo ple "crazy," and then assert most pos itivelv that the supreme court said "Stifle this vampire that threatens the health and life of the community." While it is an undisputable propo sition that the supreme court has never said anything of the kind and only used the language which you quoted as the justification of the legis lature for enacting the dispensary law, to better control and minimize the evils inseparable from liquor. It was merely a strongly worded declara tion that the iaw was an exercise of the poli,e power. Suppose the dispensary law was sc adminis-tered that it eliminated the profit feature entirely, is it not evident that a dollar would buy a great dea' more lquor than it does now and it would therefore encourage consump tion and therefore drunkenness? It seems to me :hat you have reach ed the conclusion in your own mind that the dispensary law must be "damned if it does and be damned if it don't," and your attitude towards it is made perfectly clear when yoi say, "I do not admit that the dispen sary scheme has reduced drunkenness. encouraged temperance and decency and increased good order." This, in view of the facts that have been time and again printed, in view of the opin ion of well nigh every close observer in and out side of the state, that the dispensary is a long ways ahead of the license system as a temperance measure solely, is the most remakable utterance I have ever -heard fall from th lips of a man who stands so high. and deservedly, in the estimation of every good man and woman in the state. If you are content to stand by that ufterance I certainly am willing to leave you occupying that at-titude. One word more and I am through. In the Columbia State of August 22 I find quoted from the Charlotte Ob server the following: "The dispen sary discussion in South Carolina. complex even a-t its simplest, is much befuddled just now by the fact that two Popes seem to have played promi nent parts in dispensary affairs. One is the Hon. Y. J. Pope. at present Chief Justice of the state, who once handed down a dissenting opinion as to the cons:itutionality of the dispen sary law. He was all alone until the legislature, upon the order of Gov ernor Ben Tillman, put Mr. Justice McGowan off the supreme bench be cause he did not favor the dispensary law and put on Mr. Justice E. B. Gary, because he did favor it. Then the dis pensary law was declared constitu tional. Pope and Gary concurring, McGowvan (McIver) dissenting." This lie was first sent broadcast over this state by those leading newspapers which ar.e now clamoring for the de struction of the dispensary and which are the main reliance of the prohibi ion ists, although they boldly declare that they do not believe in it any more than I do. This outrageous false hood, thus revamped and copied from a North Carolina paper, is again set in circulation, and I deem it nothing but my duty, arnd it is certaiply a pleasure to do justee to Mr. Justice Gary, while the ver.y records of 'the facts will show the falsity and venom of the infamous story. 'The dispensary law was declared unconstitutional in April, 19o4, by justices McIver and McGowan, Jus tice Pope dissenting. The opinion was wholly unexpected to the people of The state and to the best lawyrs in it. I know bcause I had talked with many of them on the subject. Judge McGowan retired from the Ibench the July following and Justice Gary took his place. Mr. McGowan had not, as I recollect offered for reelection the preceding December and when Judge that the i-sue would be presented in that light. Vhile it was fashionable in those days to say "Governor Ben Tillman gav orders to the general as sembly," I here declare on my person al honor that I had nothing whatever to do with that election and that Jus- , tice Gary's opinion as to the consti tu:ionali*y of the dispensary law was well understood by all who conferred with him and that he was as little expectant of the decree which was promulgated in April following as any other man in South Carolina. It may be That the reopening of these old wounds and the continued attacks that are being made on me may revive factionalism in South Carolina and I call all fair-minded men to bear witnes, that this agitation about the dispensary and abuse of all who have had anything to do with it from the beginning to end is not being pressed by me or my friends, chat it is the other side that is urging the fight, and I again repeat that if there shall be a revival of bitterness in the coming cam paign the blame cannot justly be laid at my door. I have never been meek or disposed to "urn the oth er cheek" v-%en I have been smitten, and while I deprecate this style of warfare, I am prepared to meet onslaughts of this or any other kind, lec them come from whence they may. B. R. Tillman. Dr. Cromer's Rejoinder To Senator Tillman. The State has received the foilow ing with the request co publish: Hon. B. R. Tillman, Dear Sir: Your latter published this morning calls for an explanation and a disclaimer. It greatly surprised me that any thing in my last letter seems to war rant the inference that I am trying to mislead the people. I took it for gran.led that all who have intelligence enough to follow the discussion knew already that the supreme court had upheld the constitutionality of the dis pensary law, including the profit fea ture. I said that the supreme court and the prohibitionists a?,e together in the proposition that "liquor in its na Eure is dangerous to the morals, good; order, health and safety of the peo r.le," and that "from that point of view the state may take control of the traffic to police it, but not to profit by it." Th.at language rri.eans, 'nEcoRD SOUTH CAROLINA OF'1 EQJIJITA E IFOR THE FOUR MONTF New Business actually j Premiums Collected - Excess over the same pe Death Claims paid - - STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CouNTY OF YORK. Personally appeared before me J. H. Miller, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is Cashier of the Branch Office of the Equitable Life, at Rock Hill, S. C., and that the above figures are correct, being taken from the books at the close of business May 1st, 1905. J. H. MILLER, Cashier. Sworn to before me this 11th day of May, 1905. C. L COBB, Notary Public. MORAL: I"n"u'eii h W. A Roddey, Mana~ H, C, BRUCE, Special WhiskeyMorphinle H abit, | Hbt curedbyKeeley Institt f it means anythinon, that the rptate may take control of the traffic for ,he purpose of controlling it but not for the purpose of profiting by it. Under the decision of the supreme court, control must be the main ob ject; trade and pfofit must be merely incidental. I was combating +he po sition of those advocates of tL dis pensary who urge the profit feature "as a justifying fact," and who are virtually teaching the people that we should support the system as a prof itable revenue, measure. The argu ment stated in logical form is as fol lows: If liquor in its nature is dangerous to the -norals. good order, health and saftcy of the people, it is wrong for the state to take control of che traffic to profit by it. But the supremte couxt holds that liquor in its nature is dan gerous to the morals, good order, health and safety of the people; there fore, it is wrong 'for the statie to take control of the traffic to profit by it. I was arguing the question on the ground of public morals, but nothing was farther from my intention than to conceal or misrepresent the law of the question. Your comments on the extract from the Charlotte Observer are not in reply to anything that I have said; but since you have brought it into this correspondence, I am moved by my high respect and esteem for the members of the supreme cour't to say that I am not in sympathy with the spirit of that extract. Geo. B. Cronier. NOTICE. The undersigned have been duly qualified as the executors of the last will and testament of Mrs. S. E. Turnipseed, deceased. All persons indebted to the estate of the said Mrs. S. E. Turnipseed will make payment at once, and all per sons having claims against the estate of the said Mrs. S. E. Turnipseed will present the same, duly probated, at once. Notice is also given that we will make a final settlement on the estate of said deceased, in the probate court for Newberry county, on July 19, i9o6, and will immediately thereafter apply for a final discharge as executors of said estate. George Johnstone. Joseph H. Hunter. Executors. Newberry, S. C.,. GENERAL AGENCY ~LE LIFE S ENDING MAY 1, 1905. aid for - - $973,548.00 .. .. .. .. 179,126.48 rod of 1904 10,949.79 . - - - 133,029.20 Under date of May 1st, 1905, YicePresidenlt Tarbell Writes: "The number of policies issued by the Society for the month of April, 1905, is more than one thousand in excess of the num ber issued in April one year ago. Our actual paid business thus far this yer is almost exactly $5,000, 000 ahead of the paid business of the first four months of last year. Equitable Life, trongest in the World. er, R0ck ill, S. C gnt, Newberry, S.C. iga arette _- _ Al1 Drug anid TobaccO Habit, HabitS St ofSouth Carolina,