PROHIBITION AND PERSECUTION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 99, 23 October 1895, Page 2

PROHIBITION AND PERSECUTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,—l was both amused and surprised to read the fearful onslaught which Mr Roots made in his letter upon Prohibition and its advocates. I wish as briefly as possible to reply to a few of the fallacies which his letter contains. (1) Mr Roots says, " The last and perhaps the most dangerous is the Prohibition fad." This is an assertion which he does not prove, and which I defy him to prove. This reform (and it is only those who are ignorant of its principles and wanting in politeness who call it a fad, and its advocates fanatics) is not the last for it has been advocated in this land for many years by the New Zealand Alliance, the Good Templar Lodges, and other societies, and,has had among its advocates such men as Sir Robert Stout, Sir W. Fox, and others, who have as much common sense as even Mr Roots. Will Prohibition be dangerous to the finances of the colony'} We say, No! Last year we spent from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 on intoxicating drink, a sum of money which would have employed 30,000 men at a fair wage all the year, and so have helped to solve the unemployed problem. In this town there are four hotels requiring a turn over of J-2,000 per year, or more, to pay their way. £8000 per year in this town, and how much of that is spent at the bar the publicans can best tell. Yet we talk of hard times. Toxteth, Liverpool, is'part under Prohibition, it has about 60,000 inhabitants, one quarter of the district has hotels, in three quarters of the district there are not any; from the hotel district with a quarter the people in one year 111 persons applied for parish relief, 45 applied from the prohibited district with three times the population. Since the commencement of Prohibition the poor rate has gone from 3s in the £ to lOd, and by this partial Prohibition the ratepayers have been saved more than i' 20,000 per annum. Prohibition looks dangerous, does'nt it —rather ? (2) Is it dangerous to morals ? Last year more than 5,000 persons were convicted of drunkenness in New Zealand, some hundreds of whom, we are sorry to say, were women, Hundreds were drunk who were never convicted as your readers know. In Napier, where, owing to the temperance people being strong, the police have been active, out of a population of about 8,000, 467 persons were convicted of drunkenness, or an average of 1 conviction for each 17 inhabitants. Drink and immorality, in hundreds of cases, go together, as witness the revelations at the Coker Hotel trial. Drink is the parent of vice. (3) Is it dangerous to life ? Last year in this colony 23 persons attempted suicide whilst under the influence of drink, and 251 deaths were caused by drink. Think of it, and let men of Mr Roots' stamp brand the Prohibitionists as fools and fanatics if they dare, when they remember it is their declared object to save these hundreds from filling a drunkard's grave. Truly, " Evil is the root and bitter is the fruit" of the tree which we wish to uproot, and we ask men of Mr Roots' stamp to take off their coats and pull with us and not stand by as carping critics. (4.) Is it dangerous to liberty ? The limitation of liberty is the foundation of all Government. The subject's liberty has to be curtailed for the welfare of the community, hence liberty curtailed is a blessing. The most fallacious part of Mr Roots' letter is the analogy he tries to draw between Saul of Tarsus, the murderer, and the present-day Prohibitionist. Saul was an entire stranger to Divine grace. Morally, his hands were stained with the blood of the innocent Stephen, the murdered saint. Are we murderers ? Who have we murdered ? Are we seeking power from Government that, like him, we may murder men and women ? We regret the slanderous insinuation and emphatically we say instead of destroying, we are trying to save life, Though Mr Roots, in his want of Christian charity, brands us as unconverted and hopes that we may get converted, V7e may inform him that many of the Prohibitionists ere as truly converted as Mr Roots and possess as much, and may easily have more, grace than he has. He advises us to preach Christ. Thanks, we really thought we did, but perhaps Mr Roots never heard us. The gospel of Christ is wider in its application than some narrow visioned disciples imagine. "We saw one casting out devils in Thy name, and we forbade him because he followeth not with us." These disciples live to-day and instead of thanking God that devils are cast out grumble at the way in which it is done. Suppose the Samaritan had began to preach to the wounded Jew about his sinful heart that would have been right in its place, but the gospel that poor Jew wanted jnst then was pne of oil and wine, binding of wounds, care and hospitality, and to Mr Roots we would say " Go and. lift up the fallen, help the wounded, and prohibit thp rqbbers from th.c (ftst™ 2** so that men may be safp." ifr Roots flatters us at the cpmmen.ee? ment by graciously condescending to admit tjhat wp are perfectly sincere, though, in spite of on* sincerity we may be wrong, Did it ever strike Mr Roots that, sincere as he is, he may be wrong. The opponents of Clarkson a^nd Wilberforce were sincere when they opposed the abolition of slavery. So with steam, gas, prison reform, etc., there have always been men in the valley shouting themselves hoarse at the reformer as he climbs the hill, but history proves that the bigots and fanatics of one generation are classed as wise men by the next, and when New Zealand has swept the drink away and looks back npon the drinking state asa lower type of civilization, they will thank God for the men who stood 'to their principles m the fiercest battle in spite of opposition from open foes and so-called friends. I am, etc., J. Cockee.