PROHIBITION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 78, 29 September 1896, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— We have now Mr laitt's word for it that Prohibition is not his immediate object. He and his followers are now using their utmost endeavsrs to carry " no license " at the next election. " The majority must rule " we are told, in this as in every other matter. But why are we not allowed to make up our minds without the interference of selfappointed special pleaders ? Why must a reverend demagogue — a mere agitator, stump the country from end to end, and hold nightly meetings in every centre for the purpose of forcing his views upon people who are entitled to form their own opinions without his uncalled for and biased intervention. It is against this that the people of Feilding entered their spirited and vigorous protest on last Friday night. Who is this man Isitt who dares to dictate to the people of Feilding how they shall yete at the licensing election ? Who has given him authority in this matter ? Does he imagine that he is the dictator — or the Pope of New Zealand. Is Mr Isitt ready te submit to the voice of the people himself? His furious attempt to browbeat his meeting shows that be is not. His insult to his audience, his defiance of the chair reveal the true natare of the man. Let him understand once and for ever that bullying and bragging will not go down with us. We were told on Friday night that 2£ per cent of onr population are habitual drunkards. These figures are challenged, but I let them go for sake of argument. Over the sad case of this fraction of our population Mr Isitt utters much cheap platform rant (at how much per annum, Mr Isitt ?) For the sake of these lost drunkards he urges all temperate men to deny themselves their glass of beer, and to join him in voting no license two months hence. Sir, in all prohibited districts it is the common experience that there is some illicit sale of drink. (Mr Isitt admits this) and it needs no great knowledge of human nature to guess that the illicit drinkers are that very fraction of the community for whose supposed benefit the sale of drink is made illegal. The sober and law-abiding man will obey the law even whea he believes the law to be unjust and irksome, but will the habitual drunk ? Under the present system he can be dealt with. His friends can, at any rate, prevent his getting any drink on licensed premises. Under the "no license" system be is at the mercy of his unhappy craving and his family are utterly without means of restraining him. I have myself lived for three years in a country where " no license " was introduced and I maintain that the only people who could get no liquor were those who obeyed the law volun tarily. Mr Isitt, is fighting for "no License" now, bat will he deny that what he wants ultimately is absolute Prohibition or to prevent the sale or manufacture or importation of any form of alcoholic liquor into this country. But such a scheme as this would require to enforce it an army of coast guards to prevent smuggling, a police force of four times the present number to pre vent illicit manufactnre, and a large band of back-door spies and key hole peepers to assist in securing conviction. It would cost the conntry perhaps half a million per annum and then prove a dismal failure. Will this country listen to such a schema ? I say no. I am, &c, Edward Haythosne. Feilding, Sept. 28, 1896.