CORRESPONDENCE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2295, 14 September 1908, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

[Correspondence on publio matters is welcomed at all times, but it must be distinctly understood that this journal is in no way associated with the opinions of its correspondents.]

TRUE TEMPERANCE AND NO-LICEN-SE.

[To Tffiß Editor.]

Cir, —I do not wish to start a lengiliy controversy with some anonymous correspondent, and in reply to "Fair Play’" 1 can only point out that 1 took Miss Hughes' statement about Ashburton from tho report in your columns. If she made no such statement (and she has not yet said so) why did Miss Hughes or “Fair Play” allow a falso statement to remain uncontradicted for three oi tour days and then, when bowled out, put the blame on the .unfortunate reporter. Such tactics iaro scarcely in scoping with the high ethical aim witn winch those advocates of i\olicouse claim to be inspired, and “Fair Play’s” indignation would lead one to suppose it was the first time a “temperance” advocate had been charged with intemperate exaggeration, but unfortunately, your corrrespondence columns indicate that it is not likely to be tho last. bfo far as Ashburton is concerned the fact remains thut after three years’ trial there was a turn-over of 1400 votes from No-iicense to continuance, which shows that a very large number of local people did not agreo with tho opinions of the clergymen and othors as to the success of No-license, and it will tako something more than mere opinions to controvert plain facts.

It is, however, a pleasant change to turn from the hysteria and irrospou ibility of some of your correspondents to the temperate and sincere letter of Dr. Gerard Smith, and I would like to comment, briefly, on some of the doctor’s remarks. The statement that the desire in persons of certain temperaments for stimulants and narcotics will overcome even the dominant instinct of self-preservation is perfectly true, but it does not apply solely to alcohol. 1 know many who are perfect slaves to tobacco, and yet regard with horroi an occasional glas6 of stimulant. In this country many are also slaves of the tea habit, and Dr. Smith must havo met many cases of shattered nerves or impaired digestion, owing to excessive indulgence in this apparently innocent narcotic. But all this merely goes to prove that tho evil itself lies not so much in the use as in tho abuse of stimulants and narcotics, and for the one who rushes to oxtremes of indulgence through acquiring or inheriting an abnormal appetite for alcohol, tea, or tobacco,, there are many thousands to whom these gifts of nature are -harmless and comforting. Tho question then arises how best can, we doal with tho evil of overindulgence and at the 6ame time avoid as far as possible any interference with tho enjoyment of those who use stimulants or narcotics benefiicially and in moderation. If, as Dr. Smith states, even tho all-powerful instinct of self-preservation is neutralised in some by the craving appetite for extreme indulgence, is it likely the victim will be restrained by mere legislative interference? Is it not more probablo that he will obtain it by hook or crook, and will drink methylated spirts, bay rum, can do cologne, or tho home-made 1 “squirrel whisky”, (a- la Portland, Maine), which derives its name from its tendency to nnko the imbiber “nutty” and climb trees? Does Dr. Smith think the mere closing of the licensed bar will prevent a man procuring alcohol if ho is so dominated by his .appetite that oven tho instinct of self-preservation is lost? _ True, Dr. Smith declines to take sides on the No-license issue, but what specific remedy does he suggest? By shutting a man up in a cage with his hands tied and “thou ah alt not” writtcTi large all round him, you might convert the most immoral tnan into a saintly citizen, but there are thc.se who prefer freedom with a smattering of evil, to perfect goodness—m a cage. It 6eems strange that ministers whose lives and callings are supposed to bo devoted to fighting sin and evil by developing tiio conscience and moral ideas of t.lio individual, come out as supportore of salvation by legislative restrictions and enuctmonts. Is it not a pitiful confession on their part that the whole of thoir theory of freewill and individual responsibility has failed utterly and ignoniiniously Y I have dealt mostly with this portion ot Dr. Smith’s letter as it seems of tho most importance, but other parts are equally open to criticism. Go far as poverty is concerned I believe with Frances Willard, Mr. Holmes, the London Police Court missioner, and hundreds of other earnest humanitarians that intemperance is caused by poverty more than poverty is caused by intemperance. My experience ot London life was that neither intemperance nor any other vice was confined to the slums of the East Eud but was equally prevalent in the wealthy West End, and it was obvious to me that the social problems so faithfully depicted by Dr. Smith lie much deeper rooted than he supposes. In my opinion he is confusing cause and effect as the evils of extreme wealth and extreme poverty co-existing in one city are duo more to tho social and economic system than to the habits of its individual members.

Dr. Smith’s appeal for the encouragement of temperance by teaching and example might well be taken to heart by the real reformers of Gisborne, and a dispassionate studv of the problem will show them that'Nolicense is not the remedy for poverty, and that the airiis of real temperance are scarcely to ho secured by merely driving our vices underground and deluding ourselves into an ostrich-like belief that they 'are then non-existent. —I am, etc., P. G, ANDREW.