The Rev. L. M Isitt at Fending

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 76, 26 September 1896, Page 2

The Rev. L. M Isitt at Fending

A LIVELY MEETING. The Rev. L. M. Isitt addressed what was probably the largest audience which has yot congregated in Feilding, in tha Drill Hall, last night, on the question of the day, viz., Prohibition, or, more correctly at the present time, "no license." There must have been not less than 700 persons present, including a number from Palmerston, Rongotea, Halcombe, in fact all parts of the surrounding districts sent representatives. Tbe audience displayed extreme feeling, both for and against the utterances of the lecturer. On his appearance in the hall, Mr Isitt was received with applause from bis supporters and groans from his opponents. The Mayor, Mr Walter A. L. Bailey, occupied the chair, and in introducing the speaker asked for a fair hearing. On rising to speak, Mr Isifcfc was continuously interrupted by interjections and a storm of yells from the back half of the ball, and it was with difficulty he made himself heard, having frequently to threaten to bring the' offenders before a Magistrate. In fact, throughout his address he was subjected to interruptions and dissent. He advised the liquor people to have their laugh now before the election came on, as the " no license " would be carried here -if this agitation was continued against it. Dealing with Mr Bagnall's statement that the Borough derived £827 a year as revenue from the hotels within its boundaries, he denied this and said on reference to the balancesheet of the borough he found that as a matter of fact £166 was received as revenue from this source. Of this £166, £6 4s 8d went for licensing expenses, about £10 for clerking, and he found that the sum of £60 14s was spent on charitable aid, the cause of most of which could be traced to the liquor traffic, so they could knocte off £40 of the latter amount. This left ±110 a year as revenue to the borough, and in order to get that they spent £6000 a year. He went on to refer to remarks made by Mr Bagnall at that gentleman's meeting with reference to the large audience being present at his (Mr Bagaall's) meetin? as a protest against his (Mr Isitt'3) manner at the latter's first meeting here. Mr Bagnall herccipon walked up to the front and on to the stage amidst load cheering and applanse. When the audience had quietened down, Mr Isitt repeated a former statement that the liquor traffic was the dirtiest, most disreputable and diabolical traffic in the colony and he was here to justify that statement, lie never said those in the traffic were not decent, for he knew there were very respectable men in it, but he wanted to get them ont of it as the influence surrounding them was degrading. A reference to the Police records would prove the misery caused by drink. He denied having said Mr Bagnall was a cur but charged that gentlemen with want of courage in not moving the motion or asking questions at his (Mr Isitt's) previous meeting after having prepared to do so. Mr Bagnall had misrepresented him with reference to his remarks that many a mother would prefer to see her daughter die to seeing her in a bar. He (Mr Isitt) had said so, but he did not assume that a girl was not respectable because she was in a bar. He went on to describe how he knew the life was undesirable for women, and said the Salvation Army women engaged in rescue work could give them details. With reference to his former remarks re Mr Joseph Chamberlain, he had said that Joseph Chamberlain never sold a " political " principle because he never had one to sell. Touching on Mr Bagnall's statement that Prohibitionists did not contribute to the maintenance of gaols, etc., Mr Isitt said he bad been told by Mr Garvey, governor of the Wellington gaol, that the books of that gaol showed out of every 100 prisoners, 80 were there for crimes committed while under the influence of drink. Again, Mr Phillips, of tbe Dunedin gaol, said a still larger percentage were in gaol through drink. He was informed that of 18 female prisoners in the Dunedin gaol 15 were there for offences committed through drink. The magistrates were not Prohibitionists, and yet the late Justice Richmond, Justices Williams, Denniston, and Connolly wonld testify that what Mr Bagnall said about drink not tilling to a great extent the gaols and asylums was absurd. Ho attributed the majority of bad debts as being due to the liquor traffic, and mentioned a tradesman who had informed him that two-thirds of his bad debts were traceable to that cause, and another who gave the proportion as seveneighths. Another tradesman (at Patea) had said he would be prepared to pay an amount equal to that derived from liquor revenue if they had never had it and he had all he had lost through bad debts caused through drink. As to private charity, he said there were scores of people in that hall who never touched liquor, but who had to assist to I keep the wives and children of men who spent their money in liquor. He challenged them to say the liquor traffic never cost the Prohibitionists anything, and there was not a family in that hall who was not touched by it. With reference to the statement abont the child with the silver tube, Mr Isitt said the|informatioa was given to him by a doctor at Homo, and the case was mentioned from the public platform there. He told tbe audience of the incident as it had been given to him. He instanced cases of cruelty to women by their husbands while the latter were under the influence of drink He had been informed that within one man's recollection eighteen men in this town had been done to death by drink and not one case was attributed to it. There were eighteen prohibition orders against persons ia Feilding, and yet it was said there was not sufficient drinking to warrant tbe enthusiasm shown to suppress tbe traffic. Mr Marseilles, secretary of the Christchurch Liberty League, denied that he had said there were 17,500 drunken men and women in New Zea> land, but he admitted there were 2.V per cent, which was only a matter of calculation. Any man who would study the question would find there was sufficient miser)' to warrant an attempt being made to stop the traffic. Touching ou the question of the liberty of tha subject being interfered with, he h«ld that the majorities must decide. People were satisfied they should decide on the labor and land question by a majority and he thought the same should apply to "no license." They asked for no legislation which would not remain a dead letter until the voice of the people decided for it. As long as the people wanted the liquor let them have it, bnt if they can change a minority into a majority, they had a risht to have their way. Alcohol was a drug which created in overmastering passion for itself and ho argued that the history of the races proved it was a curse to those who used It. In England (he Church of England jad now declared against it. |He was referring to the statement that the lotels in Feilding were well conducted vhen Mr P. J. Murtagh went on the itage amidst a tumult of cheers and aughter.J A3 to Mr Bagnall's charge hat he had misquoted from Liebeg with ef erence to the statement as to there leing little or no nutriment in beer, Mr sitt denied having suppressed any lortion of the testimony of Liebeg nd said thai; he wa3 unable to find he passage quoted by Mr Bagnall. [Mr (agnail said he could show him the >ook to-morrow. I Not a single Insuince Company would insure tie hie of

a moderate drinker at as low a rate as a teetotaller, nor would the former get so large a bonus as the Jatter. At first the Government Life Insurance policies did not give any bonus to teetotallers, but about sevan years ago they were ad. , mitted to all privileges, with the result that the teetotallers came oat, »t the quinquennial assessment, Is 3d ahead of the moderate drinkers. He did not I deny alcohol had its place as a medicine, i bat be argued against it as a beverage. He depicted the misery and suffering ! caused to families by the father drinking to excess, and asked was it not better that the few should be deprived that the majority might be benefited ? They had been twitted that Prohibition was a failure in the Clutha, bat, while admitting there was some sly grogselling, he denied that it was a failure, quoting the Presbyterian Synod of that district in support of bis contention. He mentioned the township of Tapanm* as having been subjected to an attempt to raise the rates by 3d in the £ when Prohibition was carried there. At that time, in 1894, the Tapanui borough had an overdraft of £1000, but now they had wiped that off and had a credit balance of £60 or £80, without the increased rate even for the first year. He denied the alleged failure of Prohibition in Kansas and Maine. In conclusion he urged the audience to vote " no license " at the coming election. Mr Bagoall then got up and asked if Mr lsitt ever publicly stated that the Hon. Mr Ballance was a tool of the publicans of Wanganni, or used words to that effect. Mr lsitt denied this allegation, and referred Mr Bagnall for further proof to Mr Bell, of Wellington. Mr Bagnall then went on to criticise the efforts made to reply to his address and contended that Mr lsitt had not shown that the business of an hotel was disreputable He denied that Mr lsitt had used the word "political" when stating that Mr Jos. Chamberlain hadn't a principle to sell. He combatted Mr Isitt's remarks that working men wonld sell their souls for a drink. Mr Isitt denied having said so, bnt said there were scores of men who would sell their yotes for a quart of beer. Mr Bagnall then criticised a letter appearing in the Hawera Star from Mr Isitt. He held that Prohibition would intensify the evil it was intended to remedy. In conclusion he moved " That this meeting pledges itself to oppose prohibition by every legitimate means as it would detract from the liberty of the subject and freedom of the individual, and becanse it would tend to intensify the very evil it is sought to prevent." Mr J. B. Boots, in seconding the motion, asked Mr Isitt several questions, as to how he could reconcile the fact of the Lord authorising strong drink and. wine, and quoted from Deuteronomy 14c. and 6v. ; as to how it was the Turks, a teetotal race, were so atrocious ; how it was the lecturer was so poor, from his own statement, and yet a Prohibitionist. Mr Mortagh got up and endeavored to make a speech and to ask some ques* tions, the purport of which it was impossible to grasp as the audience would not listen to him. Mr Isitt then replied to the questions. That the liquor traffic was the dirtiest did not depend on the individual conduct of any one hotel, but lay in the liquor itself. As long as the traffic was in existence it would laugh regulations to scorn, but it was comparatively easy to have Prohibition. He explained the inadvertence of mixing cases and his subsequent explanation at Hawera. He was poor because he had given up a good situation to take to preaching. He had refused £500 for a six months' lecturing tour in England. He ridiculed Mr Boots' advocacy of liquor on the strength of the Bible, saying the passages were twisted. He also ridiculed Mr Murtagh's questions. Beferring to the Turks, he said there was no evidence to show they would be better had they liquor, but if a man was a brute without liquor he was worse with it. They (the temperance people) only asked for the right of the people to say whether or not they should have hotels. The Chairman then proceeded to put the motion, and, on his reading it, Mr Isitt asked that the word "Prohibition" should be left out and the words "no license" substituted as that was what they were at present fighting for, and not the former. The Chairman ruled he would put the metion to the meeting as it was moved, and Mr Isitt proceeded to protest, bnt that portion of the audience at the back of the hall would not allow him to speak, siding with the Mayor's ruling. After a few minutes deadlock it was agreed that the motion should be put with the understandingjthat •• Prohibition "meant "no license." The motion was then put, abont half those present (chiefly those at the back of the ball) voting for it, and about the same number (chiefly those in the front seats) voting against. The Chairman was unable to declare whether the motion was carried or not, as numbers on either side held up both hands, and the meeting broke out into a storm of cheering and counter cheering and then dispersed at just eleven o'clock, after a three hours' stormy meeting. An estimate only of the numbers voting on either side can be given, and although apparently equally divided there was probably a small majority in the Hall in favor of" the motion.