TEACHING RE ALCOHOL IN SCHOOLS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17470, 2 June 1922, Page 9

TEACHING RE ALCOHOL IN SCHOOLS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE I'RESS." Sir,—You seem very much annoyed over some pamphlet issued by the Education Department explaining to school children the evils of alcohol. You must be verv mucli behind the times if you have not heard of the evils of alcohol being explained to echool children. As far back as 1896 I remember having, a lesson on the subject, aa our reading lesson in the Royal Reader. No. V. Here are a few extracts from the lesson:—"Alcohol when mixed with water if placed on any animal membrane will destroy it. In this way it is that tho delicate membrane of tho stomach is destroyed by those who habitually use it to excess and ite power of penetration is so great, that there is no part of the system which does not become subject to its baneful influence, and no organ or function which it does not injure." Men, ay, and women only too often, acquire a taste for the flavour and effects of alcoholic- drinks and themselves, and all belonging to them, become fearful sufferers. May God speed the efforts of those who are trying to remove this curse of curses from the face of our land. I think that is sufficient to show you that the evil effect of alcohol hag been known before the present Minister of Education took office, and lessons on intemperance were long ago given m school books. — Yours, etc., E. ROBERTS. Culverden, May 31st.

TO THE EDITOR 01' "THE PRESS.'' Sir, —111 your issue of May 24th, speaking of No. 13 pamphlet you say: The pamphlet teaches that even the temperate us© of alcohol is a sin! And again: "The pamphlet teaches the children of temperate hut non-teetotal parents that these parents are. habitually and deliberately guilty of a horrid sin." This is a-mere assertion on your part, and I challenge you to prove it. The "teaching'' is merely an inference drawn from the statements contained in the pamphlet, and, I contend, an unwarrantable inference. The writer guards against any such inference in these words; "It must nevertheless be borne in mind that the facts contained in this pamphlet are no warrant for an inference by any child against the intelligence or good' faith of a parent who uses alcoholic drinks, for Buch parent may be acting in accordance witli public sentiment as to what was right' and helpful in his locality at the time his habits were formed." But I go further and assert, without fear of successful contradiction, that the main question in regard to this pamphlet is not, what are the inferences to be drawn from it, but, are the statements contained in it true? Is it a correct and scientific statement of the- effects of alcohol upon the human body and mind? If "these effects are incorrectly stated then they ought to be amended, but if correctly stated then no inferences, real or supposed, should be allowed to interfere with them. Let the truth be told though tho heavens fall. —Yours, etc., J. JOHNSTON.

TO THE EDITOR.OF ''THE TRESS.'' Sir, —Let me thank you for publishing my letter on the above-named topic in your issue of May 30th, also for your reference to it in the leading columns. ! It is quite true that your reference to it was not complimentary, but if it led people to read what I actually wrote I have no fear of the consequences. The reply to my letter by Dean Harper in to-day's jssue is marked by the kindly courtesy which all who know him have been taught to expect from liirn. i have' to thank him for the kind way in which he has referred to.myself personally, and to the book it has been my privilege to write. I hope I shall always prove worthy of the credit of being fair-minded. I quite accept Dean Harper' 3,assurance that, he did not intend to be unjust in associating Prohibitionists with the production of Report.No. 13 on alcohol, etc.. as he was prepared to accept Mr Parr s assurance that Prohibitionists had nothing to do with it But the Dean will pardon me for asking why in that case were Prohibitionists referred to at all in such a connexion ? "Why were .. Prohibitionists singjed out for reproof and not the Education Department? He-seems to think that we are inferential ly to blame at un-rate, for he asks, "Am I wrong in supposing that the "Prohibitionists would heartily approve, of the teaching contained* in the pamphlet?" The Deau is certainly not wrong in his sup-

position, for although those who prepared tho pamphlet were not Prohibitionists and Inhibition is not once referred to in it, it sets forth, on purely ap-to-Jate, scientific grounds tome of t lie strongest arguments for Prohibition that have been given to the public. It is not a moral treatise. It is a statement of scientific facts and people are left to draw their yivn moral conclusions. If Dean Harper has read carefully Report No. 13 lie will see how little ground there is for the assertion that "it teaches that it is a sin to drink alcohol even in the most moderate quantity." What the report really teaches is the effects of alcohol on the human body and mind. If on studying these facts a man is convinced that lu is doing wrong to himself and others by using liquor, even in moderation, that is his own affair, but he would be extremely foolish to quarrel "with the facts. "Facts are chiels that winna ding" to suit the convenience of appetite, custom or anything else. Dean Harper and those who think with him have to face the tail: of disproving these statements concerning alcohol to justify their position, and this no one hitherto has been able to do. Harper knows, of' course, that Paul's use of the word "flesh'' in the text I quoted has no dietetic reference whatever and I am sorry Jie has made its literal meaning an occasion lor seeking to disparage the attack on the liquor evil on the ground that sometimes people injure themselves by overeating. Really, is there any comparison between the two evils? The Dean brackets eating and drinking as if they stood on the same level as affording occasion to the Evil One for the temptation to indulgence. But is there not a vital distinction between tho two? Eating is a' necessity of existence. Nothing has been more clearly demonstrated \v scientific experiment and actual exporience than that alcoholic liquor is not a necessity of existence or even of physical well-being. So thnfc Cassio in Othello, in the bitter aftermath of his costly drinking bout, puts the relationship correctly when he says: "0 God! that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!'' "0 thou invisible spirit of wine, if thou has no other name to be known by, let us call thee devil!" The use of alcoholic liquor unnecessarily places a man in the way j of temptation. My Grimm's Greek-Latin lexicon of the New Testament gives other I Latin equivalents for epieikes than the "Modestia" that seems bo well to suit Dean Harper's purpose. But granting the word that the Dean claims for it, will he kindly tell me of what avail it will be to quote Paul as saying, in effect, "Be excessive in nothing,'' to tho thousands of this country who aro so gripped by the cursed appetite for liquor that in using it they have lost all power of self-control? "Whatever the Dearmg of certain Scripture texts may be, does not common-sense declare that the only justifiable attitude for men claiming to be humane and Christian to this frightful liquor evil, that exists on no real need, is that of a ceaseless antagonism which sooner or later will wipe it out of existence? "Moderation" certainly is a gospel of despair.—Yours, etc., W. J. WILLIAMS. Sumner, May 31st.