PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 570, 27 July 1909, Page 9

PROHIBITION ORDERS.

OPINION, ..;,',■ .';■' : V,':'. (By;Telegraph.—Special Correspondent.)./:' :0 SV^y v,s Auckland,' July ;26i;v;. :'■-, The,"opinion .expressed by .Mr. T. A'. 8.. Bailey, S.M:, during the hearing of. a charge of^breachvof;;a prohibitionorder, that the present system of .prohibition is is'not borne out by the senior magistrate in Auckland (Mr. , , C.:O. r Kettle, S.M.). ; Mr. Kettle'holds the opinion that, in-many oases prohibition borders: are efficacious' in accomplishing 'the' purpose for which-they are is-, sued. -He'has learned, of 'hundreds of men, eitllior' from .themselves or through their friends) who,have:been kept !away'.from drink byitilio. is&ie'of prohibition orders. In many cases the" men were' victims ,of friendship; and we're looking for an excuse to stop going into. hotels -with- all their acquaintances as they met them,' and. the issue, of a prohibition ..'ordcr.-'-was',''an',excellent .excuse. ■ r 'Of course, ho said, : there were men who ■ would drink in' spite of all the- prohibition orders ever issued: would tako methylated spirits if they could get nothing else; and .though, .they were■ comparatively few.in.number,' it ; was' of .these, men the. public' heard and. in-' •ferred that prohibition ordors wero not effec'tiyo, forgetful of the largo number of men , who respected. their orclors; Even on those who had no desire of themselves to .reform proliibition orders had.a good:effect, because .;thc'fcdr,'of the punishment that might fol- . low disregard-of the ordors was. a : deterrent.: