THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3741, 18 February 1875, Page 3

THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION.

To the Editor. r Sir, —I respectfully decline to discuss the 1 emperance question with drivelling rhymers. If “ W.” will put his thoughts in prose I shall he most happy to break a lance with him or any of his confreres,—l am, &c. _ . W. Hooper. Dunedin, February 13. To the Editor. Sir,—lt Mr Hooper supposes that I undervalue his intelligence, he is much mistaken. On the contrary, I regard him as au exceutionaUy intelligent advocate of total abstinence. Nothing in the history of that “institution” has been more noticeable than the lack of intelligence and charity among its promoters, lanatics ami popularity-hunters have always been its conspicuous advocates; rant, not reason, has characterised the preaching of the strange doctrine; abuse, without argument, is the usual ammunition of the rank and file of abstinence. The apostles ot abstinence have generally shown more zeal than discretion, and have mistaken biassed statements for sifted evidence. How is it that the major portion of their flaunted testimony comes from America, the very cradle of modem hyperbolism, while the statement of most intelligeht eye-witnesses, who are not abstainers, is to the effect that the Maine Liquor Law is a mere sham; that it is constantly evaded; that its restrictions have led to an amazing amount of underhand dealins?} that there a fruit and confectionery window does duty as the portal ot a sly-gxog shop? Yet I have heard this, not from one, but from many unprejudiced observers. As Mr Hooper permits me to apply to him for further information, permit me to ask him which of the medical men at the top of their profession,” and what “ men occupying the highest position in Church and State?” have given in their adherence to total abstinence, or rather to the forcing thereof down the national throat ? Does Mr Hooper pretend that such, persons are generally associated with “ Good Tcmplary ?” But nobody wants to throw (I was going to say cold water, but that would be too bad a bull) obstacles in the way of abstainers in the pursuit of their “little game.” We only objecc to their attempt to legislate on the subject, and to set up an image for others to worship. Mr Hooper understands fencing. He slyly appropriates Paley’s remark on the subject of Christianity—that “It has commanded the intelligent assent of the greatest minds that ever were to his own side. But it won’t do. Teetotalism has not done that yet; and Mr Hooper is guilty of jwtitio prindpii —a “grievous fault ” in such a man. Mr Hooper scouts the idea of its being expedient to follow the excellent rule, audi alteram, partem, in religion or temperance. Surely the big guns ” of either should be familiar with all the objections urged against their doctrines, or how can they hold their own in the intellectual arena, where every champion must nowadays prove the temper of his blade ? The two subjects—religion and abstinence—have certainly so much in common that the less they court legislative interference, and the more Jbey rely upon silent unobtrusive working and individual example, the more good they vrill effect among the “highways and hedges” of society.—l am, &c., _ _ , Amaohos. Dunedin, February 10.