State

Temperance In Carolina So far as official records show, the question of temperance or prohibition first came up in North Carolina in 1783. It's been coming up ever since. А Г I he Methodist Conference of 1783, among the questions pro- k pounded was the following: *‘Q. Should our friends be per¬ mitted to make liquors, sell, and drink them in drams?” “A. By no means; in that it is wrong in consequences and we desire- all our preachers to teach the people by precept and example to put away the evil.” This church also, at a later date, took the necessary action to prevent its local preachers from engaging in distilling or retailing. This was fol¬ lowed in 1817 by the Baptists of the Sandy Run Association, who adopted resolutions to memorialize the legis¬ lature to enact restrictive laws; de¬ nouncing persons who used liquor iu elections; concurring with their breth¬ ren of the Flat River Association in inviting cooperation to avoid the evil; and appointing George Dismukes to wait upon the legislature and present the memorial. But it was many years before anything of a practical nature was done, as the forces of liquor, aided by almost universal custom, were too strong to be successfully combatted. "Friends of Temperance” In 1865 the “Friends of Temper¬ ance" was organized in Virginia and spread throughout the South. By 1877 it had 290 chapters in Carolina, with an organ at Raleigh, the “Spirit of the Age” edited by Rev. R. H. Whit¬ aker. The question of prohibition for the State was agitated and a con¬ vention held under the chairmanship of Judge James C. MacRae of Fayette¬ ville. Iu 1881 the legislature enacted legislation calling an election on the question of statewide prohibition, in which the prohibitionists lost by the decisive vote of 166,325 to 48,370. Only four counties— Cherokee, Clay. Yancey and Transylvania — votejj dry. For many years thereafter the only organized temperance force was the W.C.T.U. The Democratic leaders dis¬ couraged agitation of the question, as the Negro vote played a large part in political issues, and they did not 12 By R. C. LAWRENCE wish the white vote divided upon such n sharply controversial issue as pro¬ hibition. But in 1900, the passage of the “grandfather clause” and the elimination of the Negro from politics, gave an entirely different aspect to the situation. The Democrats seized upon prohibition as a political issue, and “local option" elections became frequent. The liquor problem became acute from barrooms in the open country where there was no police pro¬ tection. The passage of acts by the legislature incorporating churches and schools, became frequent, these acts providing that intoxicants should not be sold within certain distances of the places incorporated. In 1902 tin- non-partisan Anti- Saloon League was organized, and at once began an aggressive campaign, having as its first objective the driv¬ ing of liquor'from the rural communi¬ ties. Under the leadership of Josinli William Bailey, chairman of its execu¬ tive committee, it caused the enact¬ ment of the Watts law in 1903, pro¬ hibiting the sale of liquor save in in¬ corporated towns. But the distillers temporarily evaded the provisions of this act by having their places of business incorporated as towns. But in 1905, the Ward law was enacted which prohibited the sale of intoxi¬ cants in towns of less than 1,000. This finally drove out the distilleries. But the saloon died hard, its strongest appeal being the large rev¬ enue derived therefrom, whether levied in the form of taxes, or whether from profits derived from municipally owned dispensaries. In 1908 there were still some 50 towns issuing licenses, and over thirty operating dispensaries. From these sources a large stream of liquor flowed into the’ dry territory, resulting in the passage of the drastic Turlington law, under which the place of delivery was made the place of sale, and imposing severe penalties upon the purchaser as well as upon the seller of illegal intoxicants. The question got into politics, as the Republican platform of 1904 de¬ nounced the Watts law. This forced the Democrats to its defense, and its platform of that year approved the “general principles” of the act. The How- of liquor from wet into dry terri¬ tory led the Anti-Saloon League to press once more for a vote on state¬ wide prohibition. Ably and aggres¬ sively led by Justice Ileriot Clarkson, its president, and by John A. Oates, chairman of its executive committee, the league pressed for statewide pro¬ hibition in 1909. But in 1908 Governor Glenn had to call the legislature in special session to consider the question of passenger rates on railroads, and the prohibition leaders induced him to adil a ringing appeal for prohibi¬ tion to bis message to the legislature. Statewide Prohibition in the special session an act was introduced which was endorsed by both parlies calling for an election on state¬ wide prohibition, and it was enacted into law. Under it on May 26, 1909 uu election was held resulting in a prohibition victory by a vote of 113,- 612 to 69,416. Only 20 counties voted wet; and practically all the western counties gave heavy prohibition ma¬ jorities. I am cerlain that practically everyone who reads this knows the progress of temperance or prohibi¬ tion work since then. In Robeson County the result was arrived at by a different method. Under the then existing law, the County Commissioners were required to issue license to sell liquor upon the payment of the license fee and proof of “good character.” In 1S93 Judge Thomas A. McNeill, county attorney, advised the Board that the bare fact that a man applied for license to sell liquor was in itself evidence of bad character which would justify the Board in refusing license. This advice was followed, and in ensuing litiga¬ tion to force the Board to issue the licenses, the Supreme Court held that the matter was entirely within the dis¬ cretion of the Commissioners. See Commissioners v. Commissioners, 108 N. C. 335.