PROHIBITION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 47, 24 August 1896, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE KpiTOB OF THB STAB. Sib,— ln the expression of my views on the Prohibition question, I do not in* tend — except under great provocation — to reply to personal attacks. The space you can afford is better devoted to the exposition of honest impressions, than to a wordy, bickering, recriminating correspondence, which proves nothing bat a facility for tripping np an opponent. Let it be well understood that lam not writing to encourage an increased consumption of alcoholic drinks. Neither do I write to show that England's great* ness was built up on a beer barrel, rather, that the glory of oar nation was built up without Prohibition. " The world went very well then," and the National beverage was Beer, The truly heroic are independent alike of beer or Prohibition. My contention is that our "**v>"»t expansion is contemporaneous with the national beverage, and that social reformers ge against British instincts in advocating compulsion. I emerge from privacy with great reluctance, and only do so because of the aggressive methods of the leaders of the new doctrine. There is enough of the Briton in me to say boldly that it is wise to conserve the liberties nobly won in the past against all faddists, Social or PoUfical. Hthe colony were governed "in justice for righteousness sake," and not for self ■ sake, cranks would stand but a small chance of doing practical mischief; bat. unhappily, the seat of power cringes to every movement likely to bring votes, to the disregard of the liberty and permanent welfare ef the people. The Prohibition party admit th« many concessions gained under the present regime \ the authorities expecting in return a solid vote as a set off against favors received. Why, and again why, should well regulated people be oppressed with the pros* pect of vicious legislation, imperilling their freedom ? Why should that section of the community— the intermediates— who give no trouble to the State, who are as the breath of life to a Nation, why should not this section— happily the largeßt— have its glass of beer if it wants it, and be allowed to live in the pale of freedom? Prohibition is now being run on the lines familiar to advance agents of theatrical companies, and pushing vendors of quackeries.' One scarcely takes up a newspaper without seeing some inspired paragraph, or adroit notification on Prohibition. It is astonishing what restless energy is now displayed, in. view of political possibilities, to rob British subjects of their free* born rights. The tendency for yean past has been in favor of true temperance and voluntary abstinence. Oar illustrations will illuminate this. About twenty years ago, when travelling by steamer one person out of two would at lunch, or dinner, take some kind of alcoholic drink. Now-a-days the "steward, instead of putting a wine card before one, fills the tumbler with water without asking. In private life it used to be the first thing to produce the decanter to a guest, now it is the last, and more often is not done at all ; all of which goes to prove that compulsion is not needed. These reformers are on the wrong scent. In seeking to destroy liberty and abandoning the voluntary process they will throw the week of abstinence back, and raise a power of opposition having for its basis the sacred right of liberty. In that opposition will be thousands who, like myself, love temperance as a virtue, and esteem total abstinence as a safeguard . to weak humanity ; who, also, will rightly demand that some method, less injnrious to the common weal than force, shall be used in the endeavor to do good* I am, etc., | H. C. WmoM.