THE REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 121, 20 November 1895, Page 2

THE REV. MR COCKER IN REPLY TO MR ROOTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAB. Sir, —In this country we believe in majority rule as being the nearest approach to Government by the people, and we ask tbat this question be settled in tbe same manner as all other questions, only on a more democratic basis. We do not ask that Government shall pass a prohibitory law prohibiting the sale of drink, but that the people of a district shall have tbe liberty to say whether they will allow the drink to remain in their midst as a standing temptation and source of evil to themselves and their families. This is surely in harmony with the liberty of the subject, and if a minority oppose a change brought about by a three-fifths majority then we reply that there has always been a minority opposed to every change. (6) The subject's liberty has to be curtailed for the welfare of the community. The nature of almost all legislation has been restrictive since the giving of the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. Tbe more civilised we become the more is our liberty limited, and we consent to such limitation because it is for the welfare of the community. We cannot use obscene language in the street, we cannot appear publicly in an indecent dress, if we wish to destroy an old house in the town we are not at liberty to burn it down, if we wish to take poison to take away life we are not at liberty to do so, if we wish to sell intoxicating liquor we are not at liberty to do so —tbat liberty is monopolised by about four persons in the town, the policeman walks our streets to stop housebreakers and assaulting larrikins from exercising their liberty, and I might give scores of illustrations to show that oar liberty is curtailed for tiie general good, and yet these men talk about the liberty of the subject. (7) There is* a difference between Regulation and Prohibition. I am a Prohibitionist, and not a Regulationist. The fines and imprisonments referred to by Mr Roots prove tbat regulation has failed to regulate a. traffic, which Mr Gladstone declared "produces more misery than the combined evils of war, pestilence, and famine." And Prohibition, the only remedy, will be mach easier than regulation wben it has been carried by an overwhelming majority and so has public sentiment behind it, and any law passed in advance of public sentiment will never be properly enforced. (8) If because publicans are fined and imprisoned for breaking the law, it is persecution, then the policeman and magistrates are persecutors under the law. Mr Roots fails to distinguish betweeen a legal and just prosecution and cruel and unjust persecution. Imagine the thief declaring he was persecuted by the policeman because he was punished for stealing. As long as the publicans observe tbe law tbey cannot be fined, if tbey break it then they ought to be 1 punished like all other law-breakers. In conclusion let me say that onr motto is " Prohibition by the will of the people." Let tbe people decide for themselves, and we have no fear of the result when the matter is plainly placed before them. I am, etc., J. Cocker.