MR ROOTS IN REPLY TO THE REV. MR COCKER.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 104, 30 October 1895, Page 2

MR ROOTS IN REPLY TO THE REV. MR COCKER.

TO THE EDITOE OF THE STAR. 1 Sir, — Mr Cocker, in his opening remarks on my letter, expresses surprise and amusement at my onslaught on Prohibition. I might retort by saying the surprise is mutual. I can assure that gentleman that when I read his hectoring remarks in the Star when professedly dissecting the state of parties at Home on the liquor question accompanied with a threat to annihilate the Upper House in order to bring about a state of things ■which, to say the least, is undesirable but which our friend, and his friends wish, that from that moment, Sir, I did regard him as a very dangerous character indeed, an earnest, but unbalanced mind was my mental verdict when I read the paragraph in question. It seemed to me that there was (the will under the specious pretext of doing good to some few, to persecute the many if only a way could be found, and, Sir, I was snrprised that a professedly Christian minister should be so ignorant of the first principles of that religious system to which he claims to belong as to inj yoke the aid of the civil power to force his views on a large and conscientious minority. It was this threat with regard to the Upper House that drew my attention to the fact that these men were prepared to force matters to the bitter end, not caring, or counting, the cost to others. Hence my letter. Mr Cocker contends that I cannot prove that Prohibition is dangerous, and flouts before me the names of Sir William Fox and Sir Robert Stout as authorities on common sense. I may say by way of answer thereto that Mr Cocker's own statements afford ample proof as to the mischievous nature of the movement. Men and measures that would annihilate, as he phrases it, Legislative bodies and shackle a large and respectable body of electors with the fetters of a prohibitive bondage by a bare majority vote in order to introduce experimental legislation which must in the very nature of things fail to secnre any good results are, I affirm, very dangerous. With regard to Mr Cocker's authorities on common sense, I must say that he has made a very unfortunate selection in Sir R. Stout as a judge in this matter. Why, sir, I know of very few, save rabid Prohibitionists, who would contend that the Socialistic Enightwas the possessor of anything so common. A man who was President of a Free Thought Association cannot be regarded as possessing any such faculty, seeing that he was in direct antagonism to the 250,000,000 comprising Professing Christendom to which religious system Mr Cocker and the majority of Prohibitionists belong. It seems to me that if Sir Robert is an authority on the subject, which I deny, but which Mr Cocker affirms, it follows that he and the great mass of Prohibitionists are altogether destitute of that faculty so common yet so useful to mankind. I shall now leave Sir Robert and our friend to settle the matter. Mr Cocker asks, Will Prohibition be unfavorable to the finances of the colony. He answers in the negative* I say he begs the question. My firm conviction is that men will have liquor in spite of any legal restriction you may make. Prohibition will not only seriously interfere with the revenue, but will be the means of introducing illicit importation while local liquor distillations will be carried on to an enormous extent. Sly home drinking will be the order of the day. Thus wiyes and families will be brought into direct contact with its evil influences, which are at present restricted to certain licensed places which are under police control, and the vice with all its attendant evils will be introduced into the home circles which had hitherto been free from its debasing influences. Sir, my solemn conviction is ttiat PcoKibition will prove from, every standpoint a curse rather than a blessing. If men can be found to run blockades in order to supply contraband goods at the risk of shot and shell, scores will be found to furnish a plentiful supply to the moderate drinker as well as to the drunkard. As long as there is a demand there will be a bountiful supply. Thus, the revenue would be defrauded, and our taxes enormously increased, not only from loss of revenue, but from the necessity to keep up an army of detective officials. The case triumphantly cited by Mr Cocker proves nothing. It may merely mean tnat the drinking portion of the prohibited quarter migrated to the liquor-selling quarter and so increased the expenses of that part of the city. The statement that the poor rate had decreased from 3s to lOd mast be taken with many grains of salt, as it is impossible to reconcile the figures with the number of population relieved. I fear that my dear, but credulous, Mr Cocker has been cruelly imposed on. I shall now close this letter with a paragraph taken from the Review of Reviews, showing that Prohibition, after a ten years' trial, has signally failed to achieve any good results. Indeed, so disgusted were the ejectors that none of the Prohibitionists dare face them, Rave one, and he was defeated. Subjoined is the paragraph in question : — HOW PROHIBITION FAILED IN MANITOBA. Mr C. T. Down has an article on " An Object Lesson in Prohibition." He describes how drinking was carried on in the North West Territories until such time as the inhabitants were allowed to deal with the question themselves. For ten years they were forbidden to interfere with the Prohibitory law. Mr Down says : — " They were powerless to do anything except to petition the Dominion Government through their representatives in the Territorial Council. This was the course which was adopted year after year, until, to quote the words of Lieutenant-Governor Royal in a speech from the throne, " in response to repeated memorials from the Territorial Legislature, the Parliament of Canada finally yielded to them the power of legislating in respect of intoxicating liquors, an exception being made regarding the portion of the Territories not represented therein," thus acknowledging that prohibition in the settled districts was a failure. Out of twentysix candidates at the election which followed the granting of this power to the Assembly, there was only one who stood on the absolute prohibition platform, and he was defeated. The whole question was disposed of by this Assembly at their first session after the power to legislate on the matter was put into their hands, for they forthwith set to work and enacted a licensing law. which came into operation duripg the summer of 1892." Sir, I think that, despite my friend's boast, I have shown that Prohibition js dangerous both to finance and morals,. Is my friend aware that the great Gladstone js a moderate drinker, and \n hig opinion the remedy for the drink eyil has ppt been found; Mr Cocker says it has in Prohibition, Mr Gladstone says, No. Surely you would not exalt Sir Robert to the same level as Mr Gladstone. I am, etc., G. B. Roots.