University of South Carolina Libraries
M *£> WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1915. 1HB AND STANDARD -v» PAGE FIY* 4 WE FORGET H AVE you gentlemen that in tend to vote, prohibition' in ■* the Referendum on September 14 thought of the forces that will be aligned with you./Harken to this quotation, an editorial of August 27,1915, in The Columbia State, an organ that always investigates its facts before it prints them, even if it is opposed to the theory of Prohibition: "It (prohibition^ will be voted for by the prohibitionists and probably by all the ‘bljnd tigers’ and their allies/’ It is openly talked by the “blind tigers” that they will vote for prohibition. Why? Other . states have gone “dry”, notably, Tennessee and West Virginia— and the consequence has been disastrous ' in most of them. The prohibitionists, however, are not governed by expediency. What think you, would happen to South Carolina should prohi bition carry in this state? Should this state vote State wide prohibition, for the continu ance of the liquor traffic it will be expedient to put those ip pow er who_will wink at; the illicit selling of liquor. Do you honest;- ' ly believe that no effort will be made to continue to sell millions of dollars’ worth of liquor import ed into South Carolina? If so, you are indeed credulous. Other states show you that, political fights to elect “wet” legislators and ad ministrations are being waged. Have you any assurance that your next general assembly will •not be composed of "wet” legis lators? •. Hardly! If they are wet, then where will you be? . '. . Think! You voters of prohibition coun ties, do you realize that the ma jority of the legislators from the “wet” counties voted for the Ref erendum election. Is it not plausible to think that when the fifteen “wet” counties of the State feel the increasing burden of taxation that they will use ev ery effort to send to the General Assembly men who favor the legal sale of whiskey in South Carolina? Don’t you realize your victory at the polls, if there is such, will be only transient; that the probability that your laurels will be snatched - from you within one year is very great? . . * . , ■ You men of the “dry” counties now have prqhibition, and, if you cause the fifteen “wet” counties to go “dry” can't you see what the result probably will lead to? The result is inevitable: There ought to be no need to tell you this for you are inteligent men, the li quor people and those others op posing prohibition as a state-wide scheme, will use every means in their power to make the state “wet” again. And the fight will be on one year from now, or thq signs of the times are deceptive. And the full electorate, numbering from 115,000 to 150,000 votes, will be massed to the polls; not the probable 50,000 electors that will participate in the referendum Again we adjure you: Think! There are thousands of men in South Carolina who are tipplers. They will be averse to prohibition because they rightly think it is in terfering with their personal lib erty. Do you suppose they will be stalwart forces in the enforcement of the law? Again we quote the Co lumbia State in it$ Editorial of Au gust 27. * . y O' The point is that many influen tial citizens want whiskey, 'and would resent interference with their sources of supply. ■ Railing at them does not in the least affect the fact. Prohibition Will chill their ardor for good government as it has chilled it before / Thost* counties of the State, uhilei the present local option Democratic * to the’ ^ core—system, which desire to be “dry” are “(try’. Should State-wide % prohibition carry the expectant probably will happen—the pendulum will swing- to the other extreme. What.then? - • \* ' ' * s A STATE-WIDE DISPENSARY SYS TEM OR OPEN BAR ROOMS, MORE LIKELY THE LATTER. Then, Mr. Voter, in the “dry" counties, where will you be? . Don’t you think a successful attempt will be madg to vitiate the election should . the State go prohibition? * Again we quote b , % ' ' „ • ' from the editorial in theXplumbia Stater “Who will be the .caimidates of the liquor gang next year;- The State does not‘say but let the prohibitionists understand, fuih « 0 f> • " n * and clearly now that a ticket will be run to i* * ■ . * . * save the whiskey business and give it eas; going. Furthermore, if the whiskey peo ple elect an administration in 191b, the yeduifties now ‘dry,’ or comparatively ‘dry’ f i , . will in all likelihood be invaded by whiskey . sellers. “The State, if prohibition be voted, will exert itself to the utmost tor the enforce ment of the law; everybody who Vnows The State knows that, but if, in 1916, a liquor • administration be elected, South Caroling/ Will he ftir more a “liquor soaked" And generally a demoralized state than it has N been since the fall of the State dispensary. "We are not presenting an anti-prohibi tion argument, but we ard putting the pro hibitionists on notice.that if they have their way in Septembei>and theifTail in their oL Im-ts, howevey'earnest and strenuous, to elect a buy enforcing administration next year having forced the issue forward at this time, the RESPONSIBILITY FOR A PE-. iqE)I) OF DISORDER, CORRUPTION ^AND CRIME, WITH OPEN IF UNLAW-* FUL BARROOMS, WILL BE ON THEM.” AGAIN WE SAY: HARKEN! THINK!- AND YOU WILL SAVE YOUR STATE BY VOTING AGAINST PROHIBITION. / / /l What Underwood Says of Prohibition . / * » . • e> . < o "Let our judgment be guided by the light of experieuce. and we havehad'much experience in attempting to secure'temperance by prohbition legislation. The e> ncrience has proved that, as a rule, the smaller the unit of local option the more effective has the sale of liquor been prevented an 1 the greatest progress to complete sobriety obtained. . , - , i e t usno t forget that every law intended th" regulate the sale of liquor is a farce when it does not embody the'sentiment of the community in which it is to be enforced. It is a breeder of fraud and corruption and’of contempt for constituted authority.” ' E xcer pt from speech delivered by Senator Oscar W. Underwood, framer ofjhe Democratic tariff and candidate for the Demo cratic nomination for the presidency, 1 ^ in the National House of Representatives on Tuesday, December 22, 1914. ''C£^ Of South Carolina