THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3734, 10 February 1875, Page 2

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sir,— The doughty champion, “Atnachos” who appears to do battle for the Rev. Air Stanford, thinks that he sees in my letter an attack upon a clergyman.” To arrive at such a conclusion proves his mental blindnesi I beg to assure “Amacbos ’* that I have* too much respect for the cloth to do anything of thb kind. It was not I who made the attack” upon MrStanford, but he who made an attack upon . Good Templar Champion ” and I who repelled the attack. As to my imputation upon the rev. gentleman’s “ sincerity, ‘ there is not a emgle sentence in my letter which can bear such a construction. Whether I lacked “taste'and aelicacy in instituting a parallel between the two questions of religion and total abstinence ** I leave a discerning public to judge. With all due deference to * Araachos’s ” superior intelligence, X think the parallel a fair and logical ♦no. If It be shameful ignorance M for total abstainers to be unacquainted with any writer who attempted to gainsay their prSK woidd as a logical sequence be “ shameful ranee for Christians to be unacquainted with the works to which I referred. upon ‘Amachos ” not to dogtaSf b^ff 1 point out in what illo® X refuse to follow 44 AniuntiAo » • , ?* remarks about the evidences of fei « lU -J 18 simply remarking that I have no subject; and in relation* < a r doubts on the that, if Christianity is true in the^nm^^v

of temperance : if after nineteen centuries “of free inquiry and scepticism ” it shall be found to be true, it must surely be true now. Although this truth may remain undiscovered by the profound intelhct of an “ Amachoa,” does he think that the gray hairs of antiquity are proof of the truthfulness of a system ? If so, 1 promise to convir.ce him, should we both live nineteen hundred years. What does “ Amaolios’ 1 think of Buddhism ; or docs he believe that Judaism is superior to Christianity because it possesses greater antiquity? “ A machos says further that when “Mr Hooper and Observer’ can speak thus”—that is of nineteen hundred years’ experience—of their hobbyhorse they may look down upon persons who maintain that in the abuse not in the use of stimulants lies the evil. Without waiting quite so long I beg to inform “ Amachos” that abstainers do claim that they have even now “evidence” that is “incontestible” that the Temperance cause is based upon facts—andupon no fact more than this, that the evil resulting from intemperance “ lies” in the use of alcoholic “stimulants,” and this fact is borne out by “the intelligent assent of the greatest minds that ever were.” That “we have evidence that ought to satisfy” even “ Amachos.” And does he doubt or deny this, I will try to inform or correct him, as the case may be. To satisfy the finely-trained logical mind of “ Amachos” I am willing to admit that it would have beeu more logical of me to have written arguments instead of “facts in support of the Temperance cause were incontrovertible.” I am thankful for •mall mercies. Not having had an University education I am sure “Amachos” will not be too hard upon me. “ Amachos” must, howsac^y want .ing in charity when he says What we want is better proof than has yet been produced that the stories told in the matter are naratives of fact ” Surely this is worse than my “little attack upon a clergyman.” This is a gross libel upon the veracity of men occurring the highest positions in the Church or the State; or can it be that “ Amachos” has no information on this subject? Has he never heard of the evidence of medical men who are at the top of their profession, or of ministers who are an ornament to the Church, and of the practical experience of men whose assertions are beyond cavil that even the “ use” ot intoxicants are hurtful, leaving entirely out of the question the gigantic evil of intemperance. Should “Amachos” desire further information, I shall be glad to supply it.—l am, &c., _ _ , W. Hooper, Dunedin, February 9.