The Rev. L. M. Isitt on Prohibition.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 39, 14 August 1896, Page 2

The Rev. L. M. Isitt on Prohibition.

-o In the Volunteer Hall last evening the Rev. L. M. Isitt, the well-known temperauce reformer, gave an address in support of tbe movement to a large attendance, there being about four hundred persons present, including visitors from Rongotea, Halcombe, Kiwitea, Colyton, and other parts of the district. Mr F. Y. Lethbridge took the chair, by request, and, in introducing Mr Isitt, said he (Mr Lethbridge) was not an out-and-out Prohibitionist. Mr Isitt, in opening his address, stated he liked the liquor champions to have their Bay, bat all those who write against temperance reformers fail to give samples of the extreme utterances complained of, and never bring facts to show that they (the temperance speakers) tell falsehoods. He described the liquor traffic as being the dirtiest and most disreputible business in Feilding and New Zealand, and that it was the ruin of many men. He quoted Mr Jos. Chamberlain as having admitted that it I mined one out of every twenty of the population of Great Britain. He ridiculed a Liberty Leagne, which, he said, had been formed in Christchurch, with a branch in Palmerston, by the liqnor party. He stated the secretary of this society had said there were not more than 2£ per cent, of tbe 'people in New Zealand who were injured by drink, and that would mean 17,500 people in this colony. He also referred to the number of deaths chronicled as having been caused by drink, and argued that numbers died from it that the public were not advised of. As to the revenue derived from the liquor traffic, he contended there was a serious set off against any good which might be derived from it, as the State had to provide police, courts of justice, hospitals, and asylums, besides the coat to individuals, owing to the existence of drink causing crime. Every penny spent in liquor as a beverage was lost, as, also, was all the work in its manufacture. There were two millions a year spent in drink in New Zealand, and of this .£500,000 went to revenue, and every pound derived in this way cost the colony 255. He argued that there was very little nourishment in alcoholic liquor, and that there was not so much in a quart of beer as there was in as much oatmeal as could be put on a crown piece. Mr Isitt stated there was not a Life Insurance Company which would insure a moderate drinker at a lower rate than a temperance man. He contended driuk was a luxury, and the colony could not afford tc spend two millions a year on it. It did not distribute wealth, but congested it. That bad debts were the outcome of men spending their money in liquor instead of paying their tradesmen's accounts, and that in prohibited districts fewer bad debts were contracted, the money going into the pockets of storekeepers and farmers for raising produce. This was a democratic country and the whole tendency of progression was in the direction of giving more power to the people who should be allowed to say whether or not they should have an hotel in their midst. He quoted labor leaders in England who had expressed the opinion that drink was the dry rot of the labor movement. From a moral aspect he contended Christians should not have anything to do with the traffic and that many homes were blighted by the drink. Having invited questions, Mr Isitt, in reply to Mr H. Worafold, said that his address referred to national prohibition so far as the traffic was an economic, commercial and moral mistake, and his remarks were made with a view to pave the way to the issue. That Prohibition would interfere with the liberty of the subject as did other laws. The whole tendency of modern legislation being to restrict tbe liberty of the subject for the benefit of the community. In reply to Mr G. Wilks, Mr Isitt said he was in favor of a majority vote. Mr Wilks : Wo aid Mr Isitt be in favor of a majority vote for food, clothing, religion ? A voice from tbe back : " Stick to whiskey ! " Continuing Mr Wilks went on to explain his question by stating that in Bombay there were riots caused by a section of people endeavouring to prohibit Musselmen from eating beef. He wanted to know if Mr Isitt would object to people being obliged to support a particular religion. Mr laitt expressed surprise at Mr Wilks' opposition to prohibition and said that at his last visit to Feilding he was told by that gentleman that he (Mr Wilks) was a prohibitionist. He ridiculed the idea that one person might have a right to dictate to another as to what he should wear or what he should eat being drawn as a parallel with the liquor traffic. He contended that we suffered from the effects of the traffic and it was only right and fair the question shonld be decided at the ballot and if people wanted it they should have it and if not it should go. While they licensed liquor those who did not drink had to pay the cost of the effects. In reply to Mr Worafold as to whether Prohibition would obviate tbe evils com* plained of, Mr Isitt said that in the States of Maine and Kansas, U.S. A., it was proved a success, the people there being wealthier, happier and better than formerly. It was resolved on the motion of the Rev J. Cocker and seconded by Mr Bennett, That this meeting pledges itself to vote "no license " in this electorate at the next licensing election. The motion was declared carried on a show of hands, but a large number did not vote. The meeting adjourned with the usual compliment to the chair. The lecture was attentively listened to, the amusing and forcible manner of the lecturer creating frequent outbursts of laughter.