MY CHARGES AGAINST THE PROHIBITIONISTS.

Hastings Standard, Issue 152, 22 October 1896, Page 4

MY CHARGES AGAINST THE PROHIBITIONISTS.

[To The Editor.]

Sik,—The Rev. John Hosking accused me of misrepresentation, but he is unable to advance a single proof, lie must not expect that his bare word will be accepted ; he must advance proof. I willingly say that I have never known the reverend gentleman to stoop to wilful falsehood, nor do I accuse him of sympathy with all the acts of Prohibitionist extremists ; hut when he seeks to defend the unworthy conduct of those who have been guilty of doing evil that good may come he must expect something more than fine words from those who stand up for the right and truth. 1 repeat that the voting man who gave evidence as to -what he alleged he saw from the window in Manchester street would have had to have been possessed of a neck is to 20 feet in length. I am aware that he was tried for perjury and was acquired ; but why ? Because the case was not pressed to any great exlent ; hut it is on *"eeord that he gave instructions to two lawyers in Christchurch, who briefed his evidence, that "lie saw from the window in Manchester street, the people coming out of the (leorge street bur." The firms of solicitors referred to are Mr Weston ami Deacon and Bishop. I know that they had their instructions on this matter, and it is possible the writing is still in existence. Do your readers notice the palpable quibble of the Rev. .John Hosking regarding the utterances of the Isitts and I'. E. Taylor? He does not deny what I have writtten. He contents himself with saying that he never knew these people to speak falsely. Now, I will put a straight question to the reverend gentleman, and I expect a straight answer: —l'oes he not know that the Rev. I''. \\. Isitt acknowledged himself the author of a blasphemous parody on the Lord's Prayer, and a ribald rendering of the Litany '? There are few of us, I hope, hut have some special reason for reverencing that which we were taught to lisp at our mothers' knee; and I say that it was an outrage on religion to parody the Lord's Prayer and condemn every publican in the colony to the shocking rendering of the parody commencing " Our Father, who art in Hell!" "By their fruits ye shall know them." If a minister of the (iospel does not respect the prayer set by his Master, what will lie respect ? I placed on record the facts concerning the Isitts and the Taylors, and the spies and informers, and the only attempt at an answer is that Mr Hosking has never known them to speak falsely ! What of the young men who carried the bottles and trapped the publicans and would have trapped more had they been able to deceive them ? Mr Hosking is wisely dumb on that point. The Rev. L. M. Isitt accused the late John Ballance, when that revered statesman was on his dying bed, of being under the thumb of the liquor ring of Wanganui. He has endeavored to shuffle out of the responsibility for that cruel and untrue assertion, and at last he came to denying altogether that he ever made it! But the reports of the Wellington papers, the chairman of the meeting and the people who listened, are all against him. Mr T. E. Taylor has denounced every publican in New Zealand, and has stated that all the money in the tills of those licensed victuallers is blood-stained. Yet he and Mr Yerex another Prohibitionist —have sold to these publicans hundreds of cash registers to hold the blood-stained money, and have pocketed some of it for themselves ! Does Dr. Hosking deny what I said about Taylor's shuffle as to the people who returned W. W. Collins to Parliament ? No ; of course not, because he knows it is true. He was in Christchurc-h when Taylor was hooted through the streets for having said it, after I had addressed a meeting in the Opera House. If space permits, in my next I will deal with that Topeka gentleman, and in the meantime I repeat that Mr Louisson has the whisky in his possession which was supplied to him in Topeka. He also has the newspapers of the town in which-some of the worst possible cases of drunkenness are duly recorded, and their particulars set* forth. I may also find time to show how Prohibition failed to prohibit in the Bush districts, and why it must always fail when the people are opposed to the law which enacts it. —I am, &c., J. T. M. HoRNtBY.