THE PROHIBITION CRUSADE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2912, 2 March 1893, Page 2

THE PROHIBITION CRUSADE.

TO THK KDJTOB. SIR,—In reading your leader on the Prohibition programme I did notice your suggestion about electing "upright, educated men, ot business capacity, eSc." I took it fpr a little joke on your p:*rt, and I can scarcely believe ifc anything i else now. Had it been a suggestion from the Uhristchur<:h " Press "now, and the added qualification of "a stako in the country " been in it, I could quite understand, but from the Guardian it cau't be thu you mean it. I have always understood that the Ghakdian was a Liberal of Ihe Liberals, and I have further understood that the first plank in the Liberal platform was "government by the people," that is, a majority —it may be of one—of the people, isovr you tell us, in effect, that the people should not demand pledges from candidates, but that they should vote for honorable nun, of business capacity, etc., though their political views might Le of any colour or no j colour. How about reform then ? Can ; you mention a single reform that has baen ' carried in this or any count iy by such procedure ? : lam unable to agree with you about! ihe professional politician b^ing willing to j give this or any pledge. My experience j oF the P.P. ift that when he is uncertain ! which side can poll ihe largest number of votea he hates to be questioned, and : generally gets furious when asked to! pluJk'e himself. From recanfc utterances i in different quarters lam afraid that too many of the self-styled Libsrils of New Zea'and are little better than P.P.'s; they seam to be finding the direct veto question "the devil or the deep sea." „You seen to have over-looked the fact that the direct veto does not mean prohibition—it only makes it possible, nothing more. Thetemperancepartyaskthatwhereever they are in a majority of one there shall be no licenses: but they are perfectly satisfied that where they happen to be in a miaority cf one, license* shall be issued. Is nob that fair ? Why harp about bare majorities ? Is not tho lule of bare majorities recognised everywhere ? And does it not cut both ways ? It seem? to me to be anything but temperate or judisial to groan about bare majorities ffhan. they happen to be against you, whilst you smilingly accept their verdict when in your favor. One thing more. You say there is a very considerable majority of the present House in favor of Local Option, and you have on former occasions assured us that the present House compares favorably with any other House we have had for " education, busipess ability, and honesty." Very well. Let them settle it next session, and it will be done with. They have it in their power to removu this embarrassing question from the path of the great Liberal party for ever. By parsing a Local Option Bill next session it will be possible for the publican and the prohibitionist to work hand in h»nd on the committees of the candidates put forward by that bulwark of our liberties, the great Liberal party. —I am, etc., J. Keir. [Mr Keir writes of " a little joke : " we " should bo sorry indeed to think that he wishes the above letter to be taken seriously. His^innuendo that a repre sentative of the people must necessarily be an ignorant man is unworthy of him. We did cot say, even in effect, that the people should not demand pledges from candidates; and we reassert emphatically that all irreat informs have been carried by the clas« of nißn whose candidature we advocated. It is the ' Wellington Prohibition League, not we, j who advise people to vote for candidates of any cJor or no color if they will but give a pledge on one point Mr Keir's experience of the professional politician is absolutely unique, if he hap, as he says, found that individual unwilling to pledge himself. Mr I£eir cannot drag us into a dispussion of. the prohibition question. We hold and have often expressed the opinion that the licensing law is in great need of amendment, and have indicated the direction which, in our opinion, the amendments should take. That a Lyjil Option Bill has not bsen passed by the present Parliament is simply owing to the extremely different views on minor points held, wi.h the utmost tenacity, among professed supporters of the principle ; this in turn being due to the great variety cf pledges exacted froni them at election time on the question. ' We have given Mr Keir more space and' attention tlian are merited uy his letter,' which is mainly directed 'tp setting up windmills for himself and tiling at them—a process for whicji we capnot afjford spape in ojir cojiumng. — Ep-j