THE "DAILY TIMES" AND TEETOTALISM.

Evening Star, Issue 3029, 4 November 1872, Page 4

THE "DAILY TIMES" AND TEETOTALISM.

To the Editor. Sir, —I hear it said about town that the Times has been bought up by the Licensed Victuallers’ Association and the Distillery Company ; and truly the articles—original, selected, and communicated—which have recently appeared in the columns of that journal, give color to the supposition. I have never seen any such writing outside the pages of the Morning Advertiser, which, as you doubtless know, is the organ of the licensed victuallers of England. I will not occupy your columns by any allusion to the article on tea meetings, nor to the letter and extract in the Times of yesterday, but will, if you can afford mo space, offer a remark or two, as briefly as possible, on the article which appeared in the Times on Tuesday last in reference to Inebriate Asylums. 1 should have treated this article also with the contempt such writing in the pages of what claims to be a leading organ of public opinion justly merits, but that the question therein dealt with is likely ere long to claim a large.share of public attention. I do not hesitate to say that the article now under review is unphilosophical, illogical, and inconsistent with fact, while the taste and style of the article are simply disgraceful to any public writsr. It is unphilosophical in that it sets up a false and insufficient standard of the inherent strength of moral principles. Judged by the standard of success, by which the Times would judge the principles of teetotalism, where is the moral principle doing battle with the selfishness, the appetites, and passions of man, wbi *h has proved its inherent strength, or has not, as the Times says teetotalism has, proved its inherent weakness. I wait for the Times to answer. But the article is unphilosophical in seeking ' to deal with an effect, without taking any trouble to seek out and remove its cause. We are told by the Times “ that just as we have fever hospitals and lunatic asylums for the diseased in body and mind, so wc must have for those poor creatures who, from continual indulgence, have lost their power of self-control, inebriate asylums, where, under proper medical treatment, they may be restored to a whole mind again.” It is evident that the Times here proposes to deal with the effect of a long course of selfindulgence, induced by causes into which he does not seek to inquire. Would it not be more philosophical, more in accordance with the true and practical philanthropic spirit of the ago, to seek out and endeavor to remove the cause of the evil the Times deplores, than simply to allow these causes r<o remain in active operation, and then lament over their effects, and seek means by which to alleviate the miseries they induce. The Times would say, by all means be sure and take the fever-strickeupatient to the hospital, but never mind the stagnant cesspool and reeking filth lying at your door, by which the fever has been produced. But the Times is as illogical as he is unphilosophical. The limits of your space and the patience of your readers will not allow me to follow and point out all the absurdities of the article under review : I will only place in contrast one or two extracts from the article itself, and leave your readers to judge whether or not a writer who could commit himself to such absurd contradictious is not likely to be soon qualified for the occupancy of such an asylum as he desiderates, or one of an equally desirable character.

Whatever we may It is quite possible think of the principle to believe that the uuiof total abstinence, it veraal prevalence of is unquestionable that teetotalism would be its devotees have done productive of more evil no inconsiderable scr- to society than the vice to the cause of present prevalence of civilisation, .... drunkenness Practised as they have Sir Wilfrid Lawson and been by those who may his baud of fanatical coin pare most favorably followers, with their fellow-men. But the Times is utterly ignorant of the subject of which he writes, and his article is therefore inconsistent with fact. He commits himself to such a statement as this : When the principles of total abstinence are forgotten, avo do not doubt that inebriate asylums will everywhere be found for those who cannot resist the fascinations of drink without their aid. Whereas if he had informed himself ou the subject, lie would have found that the inebriate asylum was the suggestion of teetotallers, and that it owes any success it has achieved to the adoption and practice of the very principles of total abstinence the Times treats w'ith such contempt. J. will only further trespass upon your space to notice two other sentences in the Times article. They are tire following : The Kcchabite says, “Because I am a fool you ought to he treated as likely to become one ; because my moral muscles are emasculated, you must submit to the treatment which I have found necessary.” .... There is an absurdity which must always be fatal to total abstinence in keeping one hundred men without their beer, because the one hundred and first drinks too much. In these two sentences, the 'Times displays an ignorance of the w'hole philosophy and history of the temperance movement which is truly pitiable. I dare not now attempt to expose the utter absurdity of these two sentences, or the presumption which could induce the Time*, while so to talk of the “fierce diatribes” of Mr f'ox, “the feeble platitudes of teetotal orators,” and the “unreasonable prescription of abstinence but, Sir, if you will afford me space another evening, I may return to the subject. —I am, &c., A TEETOTALLER AVHO 'SEVER DRANK. Dunedin, 29th October, 1872.