CONCERNING ANTI-SHOUTING

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2914, 28 October 1916, Page 6

CONCERNING ANTI-SHOUTING

Sir, —Your correspondent who signs himself, "Enforco Anti-Shouting," is not fair to tho Press or to tho police. He is evidoutly a Prohibitionist. He says the Press and polico forgot about anti-shouting. That is not correct. There have been columns in tho Press about the harmful offects, of antishooting upon tho trade of the hotclkcopers; and thoro has been column upon column of reports of cases of how the police, dressed as plain-clothes men, shouted for "pals" to try and catch tho unwary and- unsuspecting ' barmaid and barman. Such tactics reflect no credit upon tho polico and methods. Is'it creditable to practico deception to trap tho unsuspecting in acts that aro made -illegal, but violate no moral law? Such conduct ou the part of the polico is utterly unworthy of tho profession. They havo to solicit a barmaid to break the law, and they then turn round and inform on her. It is a wonder to mo the public stand such conduct, and it is .(surprising that the polico should, pander to tho Prohibitionists to such an..extent by such self-degradation. Howevor, "Enforco Anti-Shouting" says the Aot is a. silly farce, but it was tho outcome of Prohibition agitation. And if there is,_ as this Prohibitionist alleges, more drinking now 'than beforo the regulations woro made, who is to blame? Why, tho Prohibitionists, for they are responsible for both tho_ Act and tho regidations. The publicans did not want anti-shouting, and the public nover asked for it.

I desire to enter a protest against the allegation of this Prohibitionist that the police will not obtain convictions unloss "a good reward is sticking out." Such a suggestion could only come from a Prohibitionist, and it is a libel upon a Force which Prohitionists havo for many years attempted to degrade.—l am, etc., POILTJ.