MORE OF MR CRAWFORD'S ASSERTIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 570, 14 November 1902, Page 3

MORE OF MR CRAWFORD'S ASSERTIONS.

(To the Kditor of the Time;;.) l Snt, —Mr Crawford asserts that I tacitly ■; admit that “ I'roliibition does not prohibit.” r You will notice, sir, time Mr Crawford puts the four words within inverted Commas us i it they were mine. Will Mr Crawford 1 please tell your readers where in my letter 1 lie found the wolds. It is not a fair arid manly way of argument to attribute words ‘ co an opponent which he never used, and i then draw inferences from the mythical ■ statement never warranted. I never t .citly admitted, much less openly asserted, that prohibition did not prohibit; what I did say was that prohibition did nut prohibit in overy case any moro than any other law, and that is a very different tiling from saying that prohibition does ,ot prohibit. Unless Mr Crawford will c -nsent to debate the matter fairly I declino to have anything more to say to mm. Another example of Mr Crawford's orculiar stylo of debate is to assert that "Prohibition has had a fair trial then(i.c., in Clutha) for eigiil years, and is an (Imitted failure by its most ardent sup portors.” Will Mr Crawford mention the names of the ardent supportors of prohilii >noii that declare tlmt it is an admitted .ailure'? Now, pleaso Mr Crawford don't wade this question ! Don’t deal in vague statements, but give names I I admitted vitlx Mr Isitt that it was a partiul failure m the Clutlia, assigning reasons for this ailure not vory creditable to Mr Craw lord’s friends; but that is a very different tiling from saying that it is an ” admitted failure.” Mr Crawford, it may be your way of argument to change the exptession '• partial failure ” into " admitted failure " and “ rank failure,” but it is not mine ; nor is it tho way of any honest man who desires to find out the truth. Mr Crawford, [ did not excuse the ” failure (another of ,-our intentional or unintentional misquotations of my words) of prohibition in muthn ” on tho grounds that the opponents of prohibition opposed it strenuously, and that if thoy had not it would “ prohibit effectively.” It was not strenuous opposition that I objected to thou, neither do I object to such opposition now. I wolcomo such opposition so long as it is fair and honest and along legal and legitimate lines. What I did say was that it was the illegal and persistont efforts of the “trade,” and the fcrado alone, that had rondered prohibition a partial failuvo in the Clutha. And would you really believe it, sir, Mr Crawford actually justifies* arid seems to glory in tho breaking of the law. I have read Mr Crawford’s statement more than once, to see that I have not misunderstood him. Now, Mr Crawford, will you please answer mo this question : Do you actuully justify tho brooking of the law at Clutha, and do you openly incite to lawlessness'? I wish to have a direct answer to this question; no ovasiou, please; so that a law-respecting and lawabiding community may know how you regard questions of morality. You put Mr John Stuart Mill into the witness-box, Mr Crawford, and seek to mako his quotation from “ Liberty ” stand sponsor for your justification of lawlessness. Now, let us apply this same argument of yours, founded from Mill’s quotation, to anobhor subject of a kindrod character. Tho law forbids the salo of immoral literature, and anyone found disposing of it is punished. But, unfortunately, there is a certain class m tho community that is eager to read ,t. Now, according to your contention, tho liberty ol sucli people should not bo interfered with. "What light has tho State to prevent them from gratifying „ueir literary taste, it they have the desire udo so. It is a most unwarrantable at„einpt to deprivo them of their liberty, md to do su is to practise a social tyranny moro formidable than many kinds of political oppression.” Now, would Mr Crawford say that tho retailers of obscene ltorature are justified in violating the aw “ as u protest against interference of lollectivo opinion with individual iude juiidenco.” it tie says it in the case of ,v grog selling, why not al.-o m tile case a ibc siy retail ut immoral literature. Mr lawfoid, you have your ledrcss ; if the • local option " law is a bad law, get rid ,111 by all means m your power; but vhilo the law exists, don't excuso people ,or taw breaking —above all, don't incite hem to it. Mr Crawford, you quote tiie -hiding of u Special Committee appointed ,y the Dunedin Anglican Synod to enquire „io the liquor question. Will you, .jIl-uso, allow mo to ask two questions ibout the finding : 1. Was it agreed to ,y the wholo Syiioi; and (2), At what mte was tho finding given ? Now, let

ue tell Mr Crawford that the Presbyterian ;u . Church iu tho Cluthn occupies well-nigh ‘ w , every corner of that electorate in a much inoro extensivo way than tho Anglicau Joes, and may bo looked upon by every ne unbiassed person as knowing thoroughly w about any decision on this question that u , the members may givo expression to. Now, about two months ago (notice the j l: date Mr Crawford) tho members of tho n Presbytery of Clutha unanimously came |„ to a Sliding on this subject, tho very op- llt posite to tho decision of tho Dunedin p ( Anglican Synod. The decision is too 0 i mug to insert here, but if y@u take objec- al tion to my statement, I will insert it later. w But you may say, well, after all, it is only <) a case of doctors differing ; so be it, but is )y there any other way by which we may u como to something like an accurate con- )i elusion as to effect of Prohibition in I ; Clutha. There is. Tho great majority of tho olectors in Clutha are Scotchmen, a who are supposed to look after their own ( interests, and are keenly alive to anything A that would interfere with their success in e life. Now, would any person suppose for c: a single moment that shrewd, cautious, fi long-headed, economical people would go e iu not- onco merely, but twice, by a three- a fifths majority, for a measure that caused < commercial stagnation, increased taxation, i and moral degiaiation. Kcmember, < Mr Crawford, that these men threo 1 years ago were not ignorant of ' what they were doing ; they had had experience of the operation of the law for years and calmly, deliberately, and no doubt with a keen eyo to their own interests (being Scotchmen), voted again, and by a larger majority than ever, for >t No License.” Now, Mr Crawford, if the measure meant for these people tho dreadful calamatics that you and others affirm, would tho electors again and again, and each time by a larger majority than ever, bring these” calamities voluntarily upon 1 themselves ? Can any reasonable man ! suppose such a manifest absurdity? In 1 conclusion, I notice, Mr Crawford, that you made a mistake about your Bishop. I sco that you wrote Neville instead of Julius. Well, for once in a way, that was excusable, but if by any possibility you should make another mistake, and Bishop Julius denies that he said what you and others attribute to him, vou might not be ablo to find another Bishop so handy. In e fact, if you would accept advico from me, e I would advise you to let Bishops alone in it tlic future, for it seems to me (of course I Sfi may bo wrong) you have not scored off | ,Q them in the past. —l am, cto., 1 8, James G. Paterson'.