PROHIBITION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 125, 25 November 1895, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir, — I have read with keen interest the voluminous correspondence published in your columns lately between Mr J. B. Roots and the Revd. Cocker on this momentous question, and I feel sure tbat letters— such as Mr Roots writes— grounded as they are on sound common sense and full of wise instruction, will do far more for the temperance or any other cause than will the sweeping condemnation of the liquor traffic in general contained in the Revd. Cocker's own communication. I would be the last to say anything to give offence to the Revd. Cocker, and I know he will take what I say in good part. Like many enthusiasts on this subject, his intentions are good to tbe backbone, but his methods are doubtful. It puzzles me, and it would puzzle an actuary, to discover from the Revd. Cocker's letters what he is advocating — Prohibition, pure and simple ; or " local option," better known as " local veto." The former, as he understands it, he can never get, and he must know it. The latter sounds a little nearer the mark and so he draws back a little. Even local veto in New Zealand, where old established hostelries exist, must be an event, if ever, of the distant future. And how have these things worked in England ? Has the Revd. Cocker observed closely, as I have, the tactics used by the great Home temperance leader, Sir Wilfred Lawson, and what has been the result? Has he eyer heard of the Bishop of Chester's Gothenburg system, and has it ever come to a successful issue ? And what was it but tbe Local Veto Bill alone that, at the late English elections, drove the great reformer Sir William Harcomt out of his stronghold of Derby and forced him to seek entrance into the House of Commons by the back door of Monmouthshire ? I am, etc., Moderate Drinker.