REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 120, 19 November 1895, Page 2

REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

TO THE EDITOE OF THE STAB. Sir, — How far a non-elective Council has a right to oppose legislation passed by a lower House elected on a democratic basis, and so becoming the peoples house, there is no need to discuss at this stage of this controversy. Sufficient to say that a number of the amendments which were inserted in the last Licensing Bill by the Council were withdrawn at the conference held between representatives of the two Houses. The claims referring to Colonial Prohibition and police supervision were deleted but this can be remedied by the passing of a separate Bill or by Prohibition being carried in the electorates, and so stop by step reaching Colonial Prohibition though with a Bill providing for a Colonial Prohibition vote the stronger districts could help the weaker. (2) That Sir R. Stout is not a Christian in the true sense of the term we deplore as much, and perhaps more, than Mr Roots, but because be is not one shall we condemn the good in him as evil, draw our garments round us and Pharisee-like stand aloof from him when he is trying to do good. That would give him but a poor idea of Christian charity. When I find a man worthy of the name I respect him; but for Mr Boots—the Christian liquor champion, upon whom the friends of the traffic smile with pleasure as he defends one of the most iniquitous trades in existence, for him to condemn, us for having Sir R. Stout, a man of good moral character, in our ranks is on the part of Mr Boots a glaring and amusing inconsistency. Physician heal thyself. Besides, the Temperance cause existed before Sir R. Stout joined it, and we leave Mr Koots to tell huii that he has no right to be a Temperance man or Prohibitionist. (3) Mr Roots refers to the wire which informed us that a Negro had been burned at the stake in Kansas for committing a horrible crime, and he charges the Prohibitionists with burning him. Did the wire say that the Prohibitionists burned him ? Was he killed because he was opposed to Prohibition? or had Prohibition anything to do with it? If not, then Mr Roots has been guilty of misrepresentation, and slandering a party to suit bis own ends. We wait his reply. To say that he simply used it as an illustration of lawlessness is not sufficient, for he said more than that — he charges the Prohibitionists with the crime. He doubts the genuineness of the statistics I gave. His doubts do not disprove the official report by the Judges of the Courts of Kansas,. whom we prefer to believe before the doubts of Mr Roots. |Mr Roots' letter of to-day explains this error]. (4) I never said that " Might is right," though to suit his purpose Mr Roots would perhaps like me to say such a foolish thing and if he has so read my letters it is but a poor reflection on his powers of logical analysis or deduction. I maintain that bight is might whether in a minority or a majority. The principles of the Prohibition move* ment are righteous. The removal of evil and the uplifting of humanity and bringing it nearer to God, the removal of temptation from youths and the weaker brethren for whom Christ died, the lessening of human woe and misery and the increase of happiness, the helping of the enslaved to snap their chains and be free, is a work upon which the- smile of heaven rests, whilst every Prohibitionist is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. According to Mr Roots' theory menorities are right, but as soon as they became a majority they are wrong. H this is so, then the defeated candidate ought to be elected because he received a minority of the votes cast. Now, minorities are right or wrong not in proportion to their numbers but according to the tightness of the principles which they advocate. Hence our principles being righteous whether in a minority or a majority we have both right and might on our side. We seek for a majority, not to make our principles right bat to give effect to them. Numbers cannot make principles right which are inherently wrong. Right is sure to win. Our principles are right, hence we feel sure we shall win. God is on onr side, and the flowing tide is with us. The trend of public opinion is towards Prohibition, and I hope to see the day when hotels shall be closed as drinking places but kept open for genuine accommodation, and when that time comes may Mr Roots help us to sing the Doxology. I am, etc., J. Cockeb. 1 To be continued. ]