MR. MACANDREW AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3899, 23 August 1875, Page 3

MR. MACANDREW AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

To the Editor. Sib,—ln your issue of the 7th inst. appears a etter reflecting on Mr Macaadrew’s views on the liquor traffic ; also quoting the experience of some outlandish “ Canadian ” hotelkeeper on the above subject. Will you, in fair play, please insert the following extract from a paper by J. W. Steele, of London, which is valuable. —I am, &c., Use not Abuse.

Dunedin, August 16,

“ If the Bill were passed, a certain number of ratepayers in any given township or district could oblige the parochial authorities to poll the ratepayers on the subject; and if such polling showed two-thirds of the ratepayers to be desirous of abolishing the ‘ traffic ’ in intoxicating drink in that district, then such sale of such beverages should be stopped from that time, except, under certain conditions, for medical purposes. If two-thirds of the ratepayers were not in favor of the adoption of the Act, then the sale would go on as before ; but at the expiration of another year a poll might again b» demanded. It will thus be seen that the Bill would give power to a certain majority of ratepayers to put a veto oa the issuing of magistrates’ and Excise Licenses for the sale of drink, for it would include alike beer-houses and public-houses, and all other places where such drinks are sold, under its provisions. I might take the preliminary objection that, as public-houses were instituted for travellers, and as they have certain privileges rested in such places,! would be most unfair to take away these rights and privileges without consulting them; but I will at once pass to the principle of th* Bill, and ask whether the ratepayers ought to have power given them to veto the sale of any article obnoxious to them ? lam not defending the present system of licensing, but I am of opinion that it is a better system than the proposed one would be, for there are certain principles generally laid down on which the issue of a licence depends. If the principle of the Permissive Bill be granted, where is its exercise to stop ? Grant that the ratepayers have a right to prohibit the sale of drink in their vicinity, and, to be consistent, you must also grant them the same privilege in regard to other articles of trade_ which are (or which they suppose to be) injurious to individuals or communities. The anti-tobacconist can produce medical evidence that tobacco is often hurtful to health, and he might also urge that a permissive enactment to prohibit its sale could not be put into force unless the ratepayers wished it; and on these grounds the anti-tobacco societies might demand such a Bill with as much reason as does the Alliance. Vegetarians might wish to close butchers’ shops ; those opposed to the game laws would like to have power given to them to prevent the issuing of licenses to dealers in game ; and the supporters of every philanthropic ‘hobby’ might put in a claim for power to put a veto on the sale of the particular article of their dislike, for the great argument of the Alliance’s supporters would apply to all’ The chief argument to be used against the * Permissive Bill” is, that it assumes the tyranny of Opinion and that opinion is changeable. If it be right to prohibit drink under the idea of doing good, then it must be right to enforce drink; if to prohibit smoking, then to enforce smoking, and so on; in fact, whatever Opinion takes up as a nostrum of the day would be thrust down the throats of the wiser minority. No one doubts the evils 0 f insobriety, but no sane man doubts that God, foreknowing all things, made the grape and the barley for the purposes for which they are used. In His natural word He provides the use • in His written \V ord He forbids the abuse. The Permissive Bill is one of the foolish windy crotchets of the day, of which there are an infinite deal too many.”