MR EAST’S REPLY TO MR CRAWFORD

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 568, 12 November 1902, Page 3

MR EAST’S REPLY TO MR CRAWFORD

(To the Editor of the Times.) .Sir, —Mr Crawford lias paid me the highest compliment that one can pay to another, viz.., to use my recommendations as his own. My words were in reference to typhoid, that it must he effectually stamped out,, and, mat we would not compromise with a. medical man, though he offered a mint of money, in order to prolong the foul disorder under regulation and control. This Mr Crawford agreed with, and I called him a Prohibitionist, which lie did not like ; and to show that prohibition did not altogether prohibit, lie pleaded that wells „ had not been Piled in, nor infected ■&. houses' burned down, nor cows prohibited from the Borough, and furihei adds, “ 1 grant that both should qe regulated and eon trolled in every possible and rational manner.” Mr Crawford, as I have mentioned before, does’nt see this ambush, but I j.sk what may appear a foolish question to Mr C.—” What is the rational way to control typhoid ?” Is it not, that >L> evil ellects shall never he seen m oiu midst again 7” _ Mr Crawford is still afraid, ashamed or unable to answer my question, lie refers mo to Green's authority, but tne reference is “ green ” enough ior me. The onus probandi is upon him, and we must now pass on ; for if J am to be a ping-pong ball, I musi/ lie at him quick and lively, and 1 am asked to reply to his first assumption that “ prohibition does not effectually prohibit.” Well, the man must be a veritable ignoramus who thinks that any of our laws are never broken. The law says thou shalt nerc commit peijury, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt pay thy debts, and there are many other evils against which the Jaw is, not completely effectual. Mr Crawford would then,-of course, say abolish the law against stealing, perjury and paying debts, etc, if they ate not completely effectual —what is the use of a law if it doesn’t prohibit ’! —and yet our foolish legislators will keep making laws in spite of Mr Crawford’s protests. Second, “ closing hotels under local veto produces worse evils than now exist.” Now, this sir, is euner an ignorant or impudent assumption on the part of Mr Crawford himself. In fact, it is nothing short of a libellous statement of the grossest hind. I find in a reply to “ Crusade: ” that Mr Crawford quotes bishop Neville as being responsible for this assertion, on seeing which I constrained to send a wire asking I-lis Lordship if he still asserted that, in view of the present reports from Clutlia. lbs Lordship very kindly replied, late on Saturday night: “ Such assertion was never made by me.” Therefore, it is evident from fact that Mr Crawford is both hopeless and helpless on that point. Third. “ Prohibition is a partial failure in balclutha.” If so, who lias made it so ? Is it not the determined opposition of ex-brewers and ex-publi-cans which ’in no way reflects to Uiei: credit ? This, however, is another “ bald ” statement of Mr Crawford's, ami the facts are entirely against him. Mr J. Smyth Fleming, J.P., proprietor and editor of the Clutiia Leader, wrote on October 17th last: " Since no-license was carried, there has been no drunkenness, in the usual acceptation of the term, in Balclutha or district. Mv business lias led rne to attend all sorts of meetings, chows, annual gatherings, and popular meetings of ail kinds, aud*l have not seen one drunken person in Balclutha electorate since no-lieense was carried, hut during the present year two convictions for drunkenness were made, neither oi which was a resident of Balciutlia. h the erection of new buildings is a sign of progress, then Bnlclutlia has progressed more this year than it has ever done before, for from <a careful computation during the year buildings have been erected and are m course of construction at a cost of ten thousand pounds sterling.” Mr h •Stewart, barrister, solicitor, and mayor, lias lived in Clutlia thirteen years, and says . “ Twelve years ago all the storekeeping business of tne town was conducted by four stores, but only two survived insolvent circumstances during the days oi the li quor rule. Now ten stores carry on profitable businesses.” The liquor party had control of the borough affairs for fifteen years, the whole of which time the town remained absolutely stagnant, etc., etc. But why waste more time? I could fill your whole paper, sir, with evidence of such like character, showing the blessings of the Clutlia under a no-license career. Mr Crawford must be blind and deaf not to know this. , ~ . Fourth. Prohibition has farled m America. Prohibition in America has done nothing oi the kind, but blessings much more abundant have been experienced, which will take- me a separate letter to show. Fifth. Prohibition demoralises tne neoplc—of course drunkenness does not: The drinking habits oi small portion of this little community, and the drunkenness thereof, adds a charming variety to the scene which nothing else could do ! There are more than three-filths of our population on -he prohibition side, and reckoning women and children, four-bfths will.be heme the mark. Now, then, excuse me bragging clement, where does the; demoralising influence come m. Please answer, and say who has reason on II Lastly, C 'but not the least, comes the extraordinary assumption that I rohibition increases rates and decrease property values and wages. 1 11 verv sorry tale about the said wages, and where it goes after it has been earned ; and grocers, butchers, and bakers have some very poor reckonings with many such. 'W r Sord- ' Don't talk nonsense, Mr Cutwford i> The sober man, go where he vili, “ Is king o’ men, for a that. —And as ior the increased rates and decreased property values. we can wuc the Hag of Clutlia m the face of such bald statements, statements which are akrn to that made by Mr Craw”.old about "he gas company not lowering their price for gas, in anticipation o , no-license vole, aiul ior which llr Crawford had to make an advertised ; and like the statement, about Bishop Neville’s assertion that 1 roluuon produces worse evils than drunke iiicss-—whilst l wave Bishop N., ,1- ‘ ]c’s own telegram to say th-vr. h„ ha.., never made such assertion. Toe the line, Mr Cravviord, confess vour faults, and don t tong uutll l!ic 5— 15 <**»fife? east.