CHURCH AND LICENSE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1574, 3 October 1905, Page 3

CHURCH AND LICENSE.

An interesting discussion on: the qaos tion of no lidanao bai been going on in Hawke’s Bay during the last few weeks, and'a letter from the Bisbop of Waiapu to the Napier Telegraph has provoked speoial comment from that journal. Befaniog to Bisbop Williams' letter the Telegraph states" Studiously moderate in language, courteous in tone, and displaying proof that its author had carefully conaidered the various phases of tho problem dealt with, it may be regarded as furnishing a valuable model to those inclined to debate this vexed question. We entertain no doubt that in the thousands of homos in which his Lordship’s words were read last night this thought suggested itself quite irrespective of the opinions of readers on the main point, It is to be hoped that as the time of the general elections draws near, and as this will tndaoe a tendency to beat and irrelovauoe, those who oaonot agree upon the question of no-license will yet see the advantage of tryiog *o imitate the moderation: and courtesy displayed in the Bishop’s letter. With regard to the substance of this there is likely to be muoh difference of opinion. Some oo the Prohibition side may feel dis; because of the writer’s remarks as to tbs comparative uselessness of ProbibiIf tion in the United States considered as an f '>Vftid to true tsmpsrance. His Lordship’s vfow of the lawlessness oreeted by the attempt to prohibit the sale of intoxicants may be, however, considered as to a very large extent justified. The position he takes tjp is borne out by tho recorded observations of many reliable persons who have studied the problem in the United States. On tho other band it would not be sur nrisieg to find some who hold that the Bishop of Waiapn has not gone far enough in bis indictment of Prohibition. We confess to feeling some doubt ourselves, having read carefully the work by Messrs Bounties and Shorwill In which is discussed the results of prohibition m the . United States, whether his Lordship ’ might not have justifiably painted the picture in much darker tints. Be tbat as it ma v, and taking into account the reasonabKewthatany deduction objected to K Sh, extremists of both sides is likely to - BSw iogww-**•;■*• fc? o! \ '

the objectors, wo may fairly assume with tho writer that Prohibition in some of Iho largo oitias of the United States has been, to use his own words, " a sad failure.” But at this point wo have to make another admission. The Bishop of Waiapu is opposed to Prohibition in Now Zealand beoause it has been a failure in the United States. But it seems to us that to the extent to whloh no-lioonso may bo fairly desoribod as a form of Prohibition, to that oxtont it must prove a failure also. Pro* hibition seeks to prevent both manufacture and sale. No-lioonso asks merely that soiling shall bo abolished. The Bishop is oonvinood that Prohibition does not prevent sale. Why should it bo assumed that no-lioonso will prevont sale? Wo I answer the question in ono way by saying wo believe no-lioonso would tend to discourage one form of sale, that, namely, under police supervision; but, on the other hand, there Is reason to foar that if any restriotbns.imposod by no-lioonso beoamo irkaome, as is the case with Prohibition in the United States, wo Bhould have under no-lioense hero a repetition of the evils borne testimony to by the writer of the letter, , . Wo differ from his Lordship by holding that if Prohibition is to be regarded as a failure, no-license will prove quite as groat a failure. But wo go farther than that, and again stato views wo look upon as proof against all reasoned objection. Briefly they are that no-lioonsa is the most illogical phase of the liquor controversy yet experienced. The Prohibitionist is at least consistent. He olaims that he opposes the manufacture and salo of intoxioauts beoause their use is hurtful to the community. This position is not only consistent, but in the light of scientific researoh is entitled to great respect os a fair statement of the situation against which Prohibition is a revolt. No lioonse, on the other hand, by proclaiming that it does not object to the consumption of intoxicants, but only to their lioensed sale, is illogical and inconsistent unless it goes farther and advocates either free trade in intoxicants or their eale under State oontro). In stating this view we base our conclusion upon the generalisation that what is proper to be consumed is proper to be manufactured aod sold. If no-lioense advocates are sincere in their statements that they do not objeot to the consumption of liquors at home, and that all they oppose is the system of lioensed sale, then obviously they impliedly suggest that some other form of sale should be permitted. If they do not they are Prohibitionists tradiDg under another flag, and should not be supported by those who believe with the Bishop of Waiapn that Prohibition is a failure.