THE PROHIBITION LAWS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 182, 5 February 1896, Page 2

THE PROHIBITION LAWS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l notice that in your leading | : article in last night's Star you quote ' from section 27 of the Alcoholic Liquors Amendment Act, 1895, that the burden of proof of innocence rests upon a person ■ accused of accompanying a person known by him to be prohibited into any licensed premises. Now, Sir, if this is bo, (I have ' not got the Act by me to refer to) it is absolutely contrary to the fundamental law of England that an accused person must be proved to be guilty by his accuser before he can be condemned, and it appears to me that a point might be raised as to whether our Colonial Legislature has the power to alter that law without the sanction of the English Parliament. I belieye you are aware that I have a most consummate objection to these prohibition laws as being most unjustly arbitrary, and contrary to she rights of Englishmen. They are insti'uted and supported by a set of fanatical persons who think they can make people sober by Act of Parliament. lam the last person to encourage drunkenness, and should be disposed to scout from society and severely punish all drunkards, especially when they make themselves nuisances to their neighbours. On this point yon will perhaps permit me to quote from Sir William Blackstone — the ablest and greatest commentator on the laws of England—who, treating on the> rights of individuals, says : "Let a man, therefore, be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself and does not offend against the rules of public decency, lie ia one of the reach of human laws. But it he makes hi* vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness or the like,) then they become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effect to society, and therefore it is thus the business of human laws to correct them." I am, etc, Saail. Goodbehere. Feilding, February 1, 1896.