PROHIBITION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 80, 1 October 1896, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, — Although I feel sure that most of your readers will consider Mr Boots' letter of the 23rd inst. unworthy of a reply, I will make one for reasons of my own. Mr Rootß states that the use of wine and strong drink, so long as they were taken in moderation, was perfectly allowable among the people of God. He used my references as a proof of this. Now, if Mr Boots had taken the tronble to look np all of those references, he wonld have found these verses among them. Prov- 20ch. lv., " Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Numbers 6ch. 3v., where any man who wished to become a Christian was com' manded to separate himself from wine and strong drink. Luke lch. 15v., " For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink." The first reference I take, as all true Christians do, that the words •• any quantity of " are understood before " wine " and " strong drink." The second quotation is a clear proof that Prohibition is not, as Mr Roots claims it to be, anta-Cbnstian. The third has reference to John the Baptist, who, as he was to be a Christ* ian, was forbidden to drink wine or strong drink. With regard to the reference to Samson, Mr Boots was careful not to give the reason why Samson was forbidden to drink wine or strong drink, beyond stating that he was reserved for a special purpose. Mr Boots will find what the special purpose was by looking up Judges 13ch. 7v., "For the child shall be a Nazarite to God." The fact that Samson died a captive in the hands of his enemies does not prove that he was not a Christian. Did not Christ, whom Mr Boots professes to worship, die a prisoner in the hands of the Philistines ? In conclusion to his letter, Mr Boots gave some advice to Prohibitionists which he evidently does not practice himself, viz., to study the Bible. I am, etc., " XYZ" Feilding, Sept. 28th, 1896.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, —Your correspondent Edward Haythorne mast surely forget that liberty of speech is one of the most precious birthrights of every Englishman, and a feature of true freedom we justly boast of, or he would not question Mr Isitt's right to stump the colony on the above or any other subject. He also asks why himself and others are not allowed to make up their minds . without Mr Isitt's interference ? Simply because Mr Haythorne and many others have not seriously thought of the subject, have not sufficient information to decide aright, or are so indifferent to the wellbeing of others as to feel no responsibility in the matter. I hope Mr Haythorne does not imagine that the few thoughtless young fellows— sprinkled with a few of their seniors who doubtless are since ashamed of themselves — represent the people of Feilding as protesting against "No License." If so he makes a mistake worthy of the rest of his letter. Mr Haythorne's trifling reference to the 17,000 drunkards of this colony does not speak well for the hamane side of his character. Most probably as that number is the estimate of the liquor advocates it is much under the mark, in any case they must represent at least 50,000 or 1 in 14 of the population, who are terribly anxious about their condition, notwithstanding Mr Haythorne's indifference. Mr Haythorne shows charm* ing simplicity when he says that the pops drunk can be prevented getting drink on or from licensed premises, evidently he does not know much about prohibited persons. He has been living for three years in a country where " No License " prevailed. We shall all be pleased to see him at Mr Patterson's meeting on Friday evening and hear him test that gentleman's statements as to the grand results of the enforcement of Prohibition to the farmers of Kansas. -> I am, etc., ~* Faieplat.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —In that foolish Bensonian "dream" we were informed that the people would leave the colony if Prohibition were carried, and that it would mean the financial ruin of the country, but we don't expect either logic or real** ity in a dream. Others have asserted — but never gave any real proof— thai Prohibition has failed where tried. All objectors who wish to know the truth are invited to hear Mr Patterson in the Drill Hall on Friday night. He is a Kansas farmer, and speaks in a practical manner, giving facts which cannot be denied. All we ask is that those who are so loud in their protestations about the liberty of the subject will allow Mr Patterson liberty of speech; he is ft wideawake man. I am, &c., J. Cocker.