THE REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 106, 1 November 1895, Page 2

THE REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

! TO THE EDITOR OP THE STAR. ) Sir, -As much of Mr Roots' letter is largely made up of quibbles and personalities, and as I entered the controversy to discuss principles only, there is no need to reply to more than half of his letter. Lacking evidence, he writes abuse. A sure sign of a bad cause and — a bad temper. The first proposition he lays down, but which is mainly supported by his " firm solemn '.* conviction — and we cannot take that as a proof or we should soon be wrong— is that in the very nature of things Prohibition will fail to secure any good results, and_ tbat it will prove from every standpoint a curse instead of a blessing, and in favor of this, in his former letter, he instanced the Turk as living under Prohibition but not enjoying those benefits its advocates declare will attend it. Now, let me say in reply that the land of the Turk does not enjoy Prohibition. Mahommet prohi bited the use of wine, but his followers drink a common spirit called "raki," which produces intoxication, delirium tremens, disease, and death, and drunkenness is now common in Turkey, but even had Turkey Prohibition there is no analogy between that country and a country like New Zealand, possessing Western customs and civilization. In Turkey polygamy and immorality prevail to a fearful extent. The Sultan, the head of Church and State, has a host of wives and concubines — a state of things which we would not allow here. The Turk is nneducated, except in the Koran, and what scholars has the land of tbe Turk produced in comparison to the countries of the West ? The Turk is proverbially idle, his manners, customs, superstitions, and Government, are opposed to his growth. Now, to show ; that Prohibition would, fail, or not, in this country. The country where it has ; been tried must be on a level with this in all respects except thrt it has tried Prohibition and this has not. Let us turn to America, a country which possesses comparatively the same language, * Government, and civilisation, and let ns ' see how it works, at the same time re- > membering that the geographical position of this colony is more favorable to i Prohibition than the inland States of America. Take Kansas, a State with ' an area of 81,000 square miles, or only one-fifth less than New Zealand, but with double the population. It enjoys ' Prohibition. In 25 years' settlement previous to Prohibition the population grew to 996,000, in five years after Pro- ; bition the population increased to , ' 1,500,000. There are 106 counties in I the State, and in 44 there is not a single i pauper, in 37 counties there is not a > single criminal in gaol. There are 359 prisoners in gaol in the State, 200 of these are in the six counties bordering - on the adjoining State where Prohibition is not in force, whilst in the other 100 counties there are 159 prisoners. This is from tbe official report two years ago, and I have before me three letters from District Judges of the State of Kansas, in which they declare Prohibition in 12 years has produced more blessings than its advocates expected in the time. \ These letters I have not space to quote ' from, but can be seen by Mr Roots, or ' any of your readers. Said a friend, who ' had lived in Kansas, and seen Prohibi- " bition working, " Kansas is a marvel." I 1 Maine has had Prohibition for 33 years. ' Every 20 years under license the people ! ' spent a sum of money in drink equal to the entire property of the State, now they spend less than 1,000,000 dollars } per year, or the State saves 20,000,000 1 dollars annually, and when the last vote 5 was taken the people by a majority of ' nearly 3to 1 were in favor of Prohibition. ' And so where Prohibition has been tried it has proved a blessing and not a curse. * Many other instances 1 could give but refrain, as there are sufficient to prove that Prohibition has been a success as ' regards pauperism, crime, and finance, * in countries where it has been tried ' under circumstances similar to what it 1 would be tried here. Will Mr Roots give us some proof of his statements ?— for his f '• solemn conviction," " may," " perhaps," and " ifs," etc., are not proofs. 5 He claims to be a champion and illust ration of common sense. We are afraid ' his letters disprove his claim, unless he * improve. I would like to reply to his remarks on Canada, but space forbids. 1 I am, etc., 1 J. Cocker.