The Prohibition Question.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19171, 30 November 1927, Page 8

The Prohibition Question.

A week ago we made a brief reference to some surprising statements made by the President of the N.Z. Alliance, Mr Charles Todd, in the course of an address to the Presbyterian Assembly, and to-day we print a letter in which Mr Todd replies to our article. Mr Todd is so zealous a Prohibitionist that we can easily excuse, and shall merely thus remark, his intemperate and impolite references to The Press. There are only two points in his letter* which require notice, but they are both important. He complained, in his address to the Assembly, that the Bill as brought down by the Prime Minister was "loaded heavier than ever" against the Prohibitionists, and this obviously implied that the scales are heavily loaded against the Prohibitionists in the law as it now stands. Since the existing law provides that Prohibition shall be carried if a bare majority of the voters declare for Prohibition, we naturally assumed that Mr Todd regards this as an unfair handicap upon the Prohibition cause. The natural inference was that Mr Todd thinks it unfair that the Prohibitionists should be obliged to obtain a majority at all. He now assures us that the Alliance does not desire victory on a minority vote. In that case, we can see no ground for his complaint that the scales are at present loaded against his side, since the law provides for the Prohibitionists that victory by a bare majority whioh he professes to think is reasonable enough. The truth is, we hardly need to say, that Mr Todd has been confused by the professional jugglers in his Party who are still assiduously endeavouring to pretend that Prohibition has to meet "the "handicap of two other issues." The existence of the third issue is, of course, no handicap at all. The electors are divided into two sections—those who want Prohibition and vote for it, and those who do not want it and vote against it. The second of these sections is not unanimous as to the method by which the public's demand for fermented liquor shall be satisfied, but it is unanimous in thinking that Prohibition is undesirable. Every vote for State Control is self-cvidently a vote against Prohibition, exactly as is every vote for Continuance. If the ballotpaper contained a dozen issues, one of which was Prohibition —the others being Continuance, State Control, Corporate' Control, Disinterested Management, the Quebec System, the Norwegian System, etc., etc.—the Prohibitionists would have nothing to complain of. If a majority favoured Prohibition, Prohibition would be carried; and Mr Todd tells us that that is all that the Alliance desires. It is not necessary to repeat in this article the reasons which persuade most people—including, we are sure, many sincere believers in the social value of Prohibition—that Prohibition ought not to be achievable by less than a much more substantial majority than 55 per cent. We have space only to notice the second substantial point touched by Mr Todd. An essential difference, it was mentioned in our article, between the Prohibitionist and the anti-Prohibitionist is that the one seeks

! to coerce his opponents while the other leaves his opponents free to follow their own law of life. But, Mr Todd says in effect, this is irrelevant rubbish. " All laws, human and Divine," he says, "restrict individual liberty in the com"munity interest." It is admittedly not a conclusive, nor necessarily a strong, argument against a law that it restricts individual " liberty," for many of our best laws are laws of restraint. But what "liberty" do those laws restrain which mankind accepts as good? Surely, only the "liberty" to do evil. If Mr Todd believes that those people —and these must include many of his friends —who use fermented liquor temperately and without hurt to their souls or bodies are evil-doers, then it would be waste of time to discuss any question with him. If we may assume that he does not subscribe to that wicked doctrine, we may ask him by what right he would destroy a natural and innocent liberty whose holders do not abuse it. The usual answer given by the Prohibitionist is, that this rightful liberty must be destroyed in the interest of the few who cannot be entrusted with it. But if that plea were allowed, there could be no answer to the Communist who would abolish private property because it leads to cases of cruelty, oppression, fraud, and crime. "No drink, no drunkards," is exactly the same, as a policy and a slogan, as "No guns, no murders," or "No money, no embezzlers," or even "No motor-cars, no motor-car accidents."