MR CRAWFORD'S ASSERTIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 573, 18 November 1902, Page 2

MR CRAWFORD'S ASSERTIONS.

Auvkk'j jsi;mlnt.

(To tlie Editor of the Times). Sir— Mr Crawford'-' attempts to male me say wli.tr 1 never said, but wtiat would suit his side of the argument in make people lieheie th.it f ii.ui s.ud, are very amusing, but. to an unbiassed | übiii: not convincing. To .iusuiy him in maintaining that, f tacitly admitted that Prohibitin' Lies not prohibit, lie quotes some Pi -fnluttonist manifesto which I knew m,thing about, hut wliieii i ask bin to gtie us-tfie history of. where and when ii was issued ami recognised as a Prohibitum manifesto. li lie cannot, wo may reasonably infer Dial to help aim out ot a tight, corner he has evolved it, out oi ins inner consciousness. Let us take Mi Crawford's own meaning oK t .llll as “ something which may fairly lie understood, though not expressed in words." My words ate that Prohibition does not prohibit in every ease, any more tiian any other law ; wn.it, Mr Crawford evidently wishes to make me say is “ Dial Prohibition does not prohibit." Bui do my words warrant. Dial- meaning ? Can any reasonable person imagine that, tins conclusion ‘■may lairiy be understood from Diem " ? What I said was that Prohibition did not, prohibit, in every case. What Mr Crawford says you may understand from my words is that, Prohibition does not prohibit, at all. Yes, when Mr Crawford can prove that. I meant, black when 1 s.ud white, and not. till then. Mr Crawford, 1 stiil

maintain that you misrepresented me in my last letter when you said that 1 tacitly "admitted " that. Prohibition doqs not prohibit, amt it you bad Iceu an honest, delialcr you would have admitted it. instead of trying to ni-,-tify your mistake by sophistry of a fearful and wonderful character. Mr Crawford, you cua.llenge me to prove that. Prohibition does not effectually prohibit. 1 will lie very ghul indeed to do that when you tell me any law that, docs effectually prohibit. So soon ns you can let the electors oi Waiapu know what law effectually prohibits m every case, then 1 will answer your challenge as to whether Prohibition effectually prohibits or not. But, Mr Crawford, why should ail the challenging tie on one side ? .Suppose I challenge you to say that the law against anything does effectually prohibit, and ask you “ Io prove it, without equivocation, evasion, or excuse.” Now, Mr Crawford, would you mind me saying that your second paragraph is one of the weakest, L have met with in any of your letters ? When I asked you ior the ardent Prohibitionists who say that. Prohibition, is an admitted failure in (Tutlia, your answer is that Messrs J sit t, and Paterson admit that il, is partial failure. Here, Mr Editor, ' you have a striking example of Mr Crawford's vicious reasoning : Messrs lsitt and Paterson are ardent, Prohibitionists ; they admit, that Proliinitioii lias been a partial failure ill CluUia ; therefore anient Prohibitionists admit Dial Prohibition is an admitted failure in Cfullia ! What, do you think of that argument, Mr Eilitor7 I uni glad, however, to see that, Mr Crawford is not altogether destitute of fairness m liis argument; for he does say that- when ardent Prohibitionists use the expression partial fat Ime it may or it nitty not justify the term admitted failure. Mr Crawlord says that, he leaves this very queer and equivocal statement, Io the uidgment of impartial readers ; I do the same with very great pleasure. Mr Editor, i said that Die “ Trade ”• rendered Prohibition a partial failure in Clutlm, and I am glad to see Unit ’M: Crawford lias the good sense to agree with me for once. .Surely Mr Crawford, you were yapping when you wrote “ Customers and the people at large who, forced by a stringent law, and at the risk ot their-fair fame, support tlie Trade in open violation of Die law.” The Trade bracketed with open violation of Die law, and liy one of their champions, too ! Really, Diis is more than we Prohibitionists could have reasonably expected. lam afraid after tins the 'Trade will lie saying, “ Save us from our friends.” This peculiar .sentence also a-sscrls Unit, “ suppliers and customers arc combined in a compact " to put Die law on this matter at open deliance. Mr Crawford, was 1 not right in saying that the Trade was responsible for Die partial failure of Prohibition in Chitlin 7 You yourself admit it in a far more forcible way than I should have cared to do. But why should suppliers and customers combine to set the Jaw at open deliance 7 Would it not he belter for their fair fame (which vou, Mr Crawford, express yourself as being so anxious, so very anxious about) to combine not to openly violate Die existing lw, hut to have the law changed if it is so very drastic and bears so grievously against you and your friends 7 But whether you deny it or not, in both letters you consciously or unconsciously apologise tor lawlessness and invite people to break tlie Jaw. Now, Mr Editor, as Mr Crawford Jigs agreed with me once, why should J not return Die compliment and agree with him once, too. ile says “ that tlie proper way of coping with the drink evils is through the people.” To that I give my ntosL cordial assent. Ouj: contention all along has been., Jet the people decide it. Jn fact the essence of tlie local option law which Mr Crawford regards as so drastic isrwhgt lie calls Die proper method of, coping with the drink evils, submitting them to Die will of the people; and don’t you make any mistake about it, Mr Crawford, the people mean to make full use of flieii: privilege, and do all in their power to vote out of our midst, a traffic wliieii more than tiny other traffic is inimical to Die best am', highest interests of tlie people. .Surely, Mr Editor, I ought to lie very much obliged to Mr Crawford for iiis kindly efforts to restrain me from hnnginjg about uucli a state of matters in Gisborne as will create,breaches of the law as in Clutha. Mr Crawford, will you be bold enough to say that, there are now breaches of the Licensing laws in Gisborne 7, If you fancy : o, ju: i study the police records for the 1, Circe years here. 1 lave the'o never been any cases of sly-grog selling here 7 Are the Licensing laws

curried out in every ease with perfect aceurucy Mr Crawford, do you know the Dunc-din star ? Then you know a paper that to ;ay the very least is anything but hostile o the " trade." Will you ponder careully what it says ; “ No defence, hov.’)ver strongly worded, can remove from he public the conviction that the condiions of license are systematically and ■ ery generally evaded, with the result hat there is a grave and alarming increase if drunkenness, especially on (Sundays. n some of the suburbs licensed houses re;ard Sunday as the most profitable day of he week while in the city itself it rust be confessed that there are largo number of hotels which make a ractice of evading the law.” A little jrther on, the Star makes this startling latement. 11 The truth is that the custom i evading the provisions of the Licensing cts is becoming almost universal.” ow, a very largo percentage of the eetors are absolutely independent of the Trade,” and resent very strongly e persistent and patent infringe-c-nts of the law that are of almost -f- ! y occurrence. The resentment will be ariifested at the ballot-box in November, d we have certainly been amazed dur- ? our travels up and down the country late with the number of person of casual quaintance who had quite unsolicited dared their intention of voting “ Nocense ' at the local option poll xt month. Now, the Trade are

Jolly to blame for the existing j coDuitlou of affairs. Mr Crawford, you ask [ me if I would help to lead to the introduc- [ tion of a drastic and stringent law that j would be likely to load to breaches of the law? Will Mr Crawford answer me I whether the prohibition law in Glutha hac been as openly and systematically violated as (according to the Star) the licensing Acts have been in Dunedin? Sly-grog selling under Prohibition is a mere baga° telle compared with siy-grog selling under License. If sly grog selling was exclusively a feature of Prohibition then there hi .mi sense in Mr Crawford’s question, not otherwise. My tin,e and your space forbid me writing more on the subject at present.—l am, etc., J. G. Paispsop,