DR. DUNN ON PROHIBITION.

Evening Star, Issue 3122, 20 February 1873, Page 3

DR. DUNN ON PROHIBITION.

Dr Dunn delivered a lecture at the Queen’s Theatre yesterday evening on the prohibition of the manufacture, importation, and sale of spirituous and fermented liquors There were about 200 persons present, .f:is Worship the Mayor occupied the chair, and in introducing the lecturer said be presided on that occasion not as a teetotaller, for he was not one, but simply in his official capacity. There was little doubt but intemperance was the cause of many evils, and that the cause of temperance therefore deserved sympathy and support. Dr Dunn commenced by rein rking that the subject of discussion on that occasion was prohibition, but before proceeding with the subject he had to remark that there was no task so hard for a speaker as to address rmpty benches, but the lack of numbers was amply made up by the quality of those premat. He need not stop to discuss whether the use of alcohol was an evil to society, for the amount of crime, debauchery, and sin seen everywhere and attributable to its use was ample proof. He might, however, take them down the dim vista of years long past, and show that the decadence of nations was attri utable to the cursed indulgence >n spirit dlinking. He then alluded to th c early hj isfcory of Persia and H om e, showing how enormous the vice had become in those countries, so that it was found absolute! y necessary to establish prohibitoiy measures. He also traced the history of the practice in England, America, and Ireland, arguing that the national of these lands was tarnished by intemperance; and also that the latter, once the pride of Europe, had fallen from its lofty position as the leader in learning and chivalry by the use of spirit?. Proud as he was of America as his native country, his blood was often made to tingle on his cheeks by hearing as he travelled that America was a country of drunkards. Once the people wire a hardworking, industrious, sober race ; bub wealth had enabled them to cover their sideboards with all descriptions of luxuries, including spirits, and now, the practice of drinking had become so general that the very children were half fed on rum. He read a series of statistical papers showing the vast quantities of rum. brandy, whi-kuy, and beer that passed down tbc guzzling Yankees’- throats in 18(11, the valueof which, he said, was enough to provide every individual in the country with a Bible, to cover the working expenses of the Government and teed the poor. But instead of this, the money was wasted on an article which was the moans of producing poverty, debauchery, delirium, and crime, which in turn cost the State money to prosecute and I punish. How was this evil to hj r reduced or i destroyed ? Some would say, “ Regulate it | by license, as in New Zealand.” If it was | right to sell it at all, it ought to be sold as free as water. The imposition of a license | did not do any good beyond the gaining of a j certain amount of revenue therefrom. But that revenue was derived at an enormous cost to the people. For instancy the license was 1,25 per annum, ami assuming that there were eighty public-houses in Dunedin, the revenue derived from them would be L2,0;;0. '1 his sum would be used to fix the streets, roads, and bridges. The keepers of these rum-shops would have to pay, besides the license fees, about LI,BOO rate 4, L 3.000 for labor in conducting their establishments; and LI 80 for light, thus making a total of 19,100, Assuming, in addition to these figures, that the rum sellers would derive an aggregate profit from their traffic, it; wquld be seen that the community had to pay over Lid,ooo for th* use of L 2,000 for public purposes. Was tb s, then, the way to regulate this traffic ? It might be regulated so long as it was kept on the bar shelves, but not, when it pot into men’s stomachs. It might be argued that if the drunkard was brought befpre the police court and punished, he would not come there again, but that had been tried without effect. jhe only real remedy was prohibition of the manufacture, importation, or sale of spirituous or fermented liquors. Alcoholic drinks were not required either as a stimulant or as medicine, A better subst’tute could easily be found in other forms. It did not act on the body, but the body acted on it by absorption into the ti sues and thepco to the brain; producing ffelirram tremens and a 1 hops and other ills. He challenged q,ny ph ' sienn in Tuned in to show that the modus opemndi of the action of alcohol on (he human system was bene, ficial, The effect produced by it he could produce on any patient by a whip. It might be said that prohibition would he an infringement on the liberty of the rnbject. But it was no more aji infringnuont than the pa* sing of an Act prohibiting the use of certain food likely to prolong an epidemic, while the epidemic was existing. A physician, though educated in every branch of his profession, was not permitted to practise one branch of it without submitting himself to the penalty of the law. An author might write on any subject not offensive, but once he produced a profane book he was liable tp, punishment. A person fflight cany on a manufactory ao long as it did not interfere with the health of the people in the neighborhood, but the moment it did he was liable to tbe penalty of the law. The dram shop waj a nuisance, and why should it not be dealt with in like manner. He then proceeded to show that the prohibitory laws ip the of Massachusetts, Vermont, ppd Maine' wpre successful ip suppressing to a vpry great extent the liquor traffic, stating that the success was in a great measure attr-butable to the p;rseveranco and persuasive powers of the fair sex. He illustrated this portion of bis subject by a number of humorous and well-told anecdotes, and concluded by urging upon the ladies of Dunedin to take part in the great work q£ Suppressing tlie use of alcoholic liquors. On the mot ion' of Mr I ago, a cordial vote of thanks was awarded to the lecturer. A vote of thanks was afcjo awarded , to the chairman ; and while acknowledging it he Remarked that ho was morp in favor of a persuasive than a, prohibitory uneaus pf vufor«nuij| evil,