THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC: WHAT HISTORY TELLS US

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 306, 14 September 1918, Page 9

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC: WHAT HISTORY TELLS US

Sir,—ln your morning's issue E. Kennedy acts out to show that Mr. Simpson's statements, as reported in the paper, are contrary to fact, and as 3 glaring example asserts thnt Bishop Dunstan instituted license prior to 1558. Assertion is not proof. Whether Bishop Dunstan did, or die] not, institute license matters not—his object is what concerns the people, and Mr.-Kennedy supplies the answer, i.e., "because of. tlio general intoxication that resulted therefrom the Bishop suggested to the then 'Chancellor of tiro Exchequer that 1 certain persons _ only should have the privilege." Obviously ho wanted to do one of two things, cither to reduce drinking or to create a monopoly—which, history does not record; but it indicates the latter because if. is recorded that King Edgar, at the instance of Dunstan, limited by law the- number of taverns and the sizo of the pots. It also records that the , clergy needed reforming in thoso days and even before that, because St. Gildas the Wise, in 570 a.d, ordered the drunken clergy to be punished. St. David (569) punished the publican also. In 1285 taverns in London were to close at Curfew. This was to prevent- crime. Even in 1688 retailers hung out signs "Drunk for Id." "Dead drunk for 2d." "Straw for nothing," but I cannot find any record of any retailer hiving exhibited n drunken man with a sign attached "Made on the Premises." Yes, us Mr. Kennedy says, "some water has run under the bridp;? since then," but it is eetting more- dirty evory day. In thoso days they closed the hotels at Curfew, and the publican provided a lied and cared for his product; to-day he has a monopoly, and moro privileges than any other business. Hn then throws his' product on the street for the State to care for! Mr. Knniiedv also refers to Dr. Anson's letter, but I hesitate to accept what he says, in view of the progress that has been made, and ir< face of the opinion of other medical men of at least equal importance; and I fool sure that Dr. Anson himself would not be so egotistical as to claim that he is the last word in lnodical science or even on tho liquor question*. Mr. Kennedy asserts that the Germans inspired" the Tsar to prohibit vodka. Did not the Germans want to defeat Russia? If so, the surest way to do it, on thpir own showing, was to continue the sale. This is "what Dr. Zacher. a responsible German Government officer, says, in "Social Progress," pnges 36 nnd 37:—"The continued arrt detailed statistics of the workinir men's insurance have demonstrated that alcoholism, that is, the excessive consumption of alcoholic drinks, leads to increased nxiios'ivn to sickness, accilont, and invalidity, consequently inmortality. Moreover, people nddictcd to alcohol readily contract diseases of all sorts, convalesce slower, and are pronn to relapse, while, on the other hand, the members which abstain from such excesses are far less exposed, and their recoveries are surer and more rnnid. It is certain that the abuse of alcohol tends not only ■ to largely increase the liability to accidents and unfavourably influences their consequences, but also promotes and spreads the national disease of tuberculosis." I shall he pleased to give some more facts whon the opportunity offers, but Mr. Kennedy should brush up his history on tho subject.— I am, etc., M. J. MACK. September 11.