CORRESPONDENCE. RE PUBLIC-HOUSES AND ELECTION DAYS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1438, 25 September 1878, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

RE PUBLIC-HOUSES AND ELECTION DAYS.

To the Editor of the Globe

Sir, —As a constant reader of your valuable paper, and often of its leaders, as usual I cast my eye on the leader of the 23rd inst., re Public-houses and Election days. At the commencement 1 saw language of a most vigorous and not very ornamental kind. After looking through the article in question, it struck me it deserved to be commented on, and, though not having much time, I have, Mr Editor, to ask you to favour me with a little space to do so. The article in question, at its introduction, makes a kind of boastful parade of the following kind of language. Speaking of a clause in the Electoral Bill now before the House—regarding closing public houses on election days, which had been thrown out of the Bill, —you say, it was a triumph of common sense over this species of monomaniaca! foolishness, which could alone have suggested the introduction of this clause into the Bill. This, Mr Editor, is a very summary way of settling the question. If I felt at liberty to be as free with bad words, I should, no doubt, find plenty as strong to use as your side of the question, and with much more propriety. It could arise from nothing short of strong prejudice and a somewhat narrow-minded-ness, with want of thought. Does it noc strike you that a majority of nine to begin with should have deserved more qualified criticism, not such a majority as even yet might not be altered, especially when in the minority are some of the best and ablest men in the House, hardly likely to be thought monomaniacal by anyone else except the editor of the Globe, The idea of lunacy belongs to the drinking customs of the day, of which we have plenty of proof, of which I am certain I need not to remind you, Mr Editor, as I have noticed yon have on previous occasions wrote very ably. How you have looked out of the corner of your eye, or through some musty spectacles on this important question, at the present time I can understand or answer for. The gist of your argument seems to rest on one idea of man’s ability to resist temptation and prove his manliness. If so, why such wrecks of humanity as we see from day to day? Why is not this manliness always found’sufficient? Or, on the other hand, you take up the ground that all manliness will fail and men will have drink whether or not, and it will be got by illegal if not by legal means, or using your own words, this closing public houses on election days will encourage hypocrisy. This may be true in a limited sense, but it is better to have a few hypocrites, whose charsctera will not be materially altered by this particular transaction, than go in for giving the strongest temptation which any circumstances offer in ordinary life, either of a social or business character. Where is there more excitement often than on election days, especially when you have unprincipled candidates in the contest who stick at nothing to get a position ? |Such conduct is not far to seek even in this somewhat respectable city, and was not long since enacted before our eyes. If you did not see it, Mr Editor, it must be because you were blest with the power of shutting your eyes. I feel I must repeat myself by saying your prejudice must have bested your judgment in this case. I don’t say this clause in the Act is the best thing that could be done for us as a county, but I say until we can get a grand reform in the drinking customs of the times by some sweeping me»sure, let us be thankful for even piecemeal legislation. A little respite is better than none, one black eye is better than two. Yours, &c,, J. L. WILSON. [The man has probably yet to be born who does not view one side of a question with more favour than the other, and certainly our correspondent, however he may plume himself, is no exception to his fellows. Our contention was and is that open indiscretions are less injurious to social life than disguised sins—rendered such by laws based on the theories of a few persons of one idea, regardless of popular opinion or rights.— Ed. Globe.]