CORRESPONDENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2164, 21 August 1907, Page 1

CORRESPONDENCE

PROHIBITION FRUIT. [To the Editor.] Sir,—ln the course of my two previous letters I pointed out to your reactors that Mr. McLachlan’s niembersliip of the House was tho fruit of prohibition, and, in doing this, I indicated facts which- your correspondent, Mr. Palk, does not attempt to question:—That Ashburton is a prohibition stronghold, with at least a three-fifths majority; that Mr. McLachlan is a staunch prohibitionist, that he was elected as an avowed prohibitionist, and that, in the House, he is recognised as one of the Parliamentary prohibition party. From these facts I have drawn the only rational conclusion:—That his membership is one of the fruits of prohibition. Mr. Palk takes weak refuge behind tho assertion that the Alliance passed no resolution in favour of Mr. McLachlan’s candidature. Was it necessary, Mr. Pal'kP As one knowing something about the election I will ask:—Did any Alliance pass any resolution against his candidature? Did they pass any resolution in favour of any other candidate? If not, then, why not? Will Mr. Palk plead that his party, having an overwhelming majority in Ashburton, were still powerless to elect a candidate?

Ashburton is one of those places, on which the prohibition Golden Ago sheds its beneficent light, and these are the fruits that it ripens.

The personal attack on me which Mr. Palk thinks fit to indulge in is not of interest to your readers, excepting on two minor points :—When Mr. Palk says that I am illogical when I claim that my letters are not written in defence of the liquor trade he apparently loses sight of the text of my letters—that prohibition is only a cloak for clerical ascendancy, or, in other words, for the rule of the parson. I am satisfied with the power being in the hands of the layman. because my reading of history teaches me to distrust the cleric m the political arena.

Mr. Palk also insinuates that I belong to the ranks of such men as Messrs. Collins and Sievwright, who, for all I know, were paid servants of the trade. Mr. Palk knows one thing—knows that perfectly—that he has no right, no evidence that this is correct. Let me add that his assumption is wrong. I write as a private citizen, actuated by only ono strong conviction—that prohibition and its attendant surroundings will be opposed to our best interests as colonists. To this opinion I have a perfect right. Have I not, Mr. Pal'k? I know that prohibition principles deny all men tho right to express dissent, but surely Mr. Palk would not go as far as that. - I congratulate your correspondent on his prudence in dropping the

plea that Ashburton—the prohibition stronghold—had to act on the dictum of the late Mr. Seddon. Equal prudence is alio displayed when Mr. Palk, to use his own words declines to “come out into the open” and defend Miss Murcutt’s extraordinary attack on Dr. Collins for his manly defence of the Britisher.—l am, etc, “A CHRISTIAN.”