PROHIBITION LEADERS.

Hastings Standard, Issue 159, 30 October 1896, Page 4

PROHIBITION LEADERS.

'To Thk l-'.nnuK.; Sni. —Mr Horn-by accuses me of being illogical in not entering fully upon details with which I am unacquainted. In my letters on this subject, I have refuted stab ments on which I am somewhat certain, and on others I have argued on probability. Sutvly if I know a man to be truthful, and another man says that this man is a liar, and I have not a single instance < f lii> falsifying, but such statements as may prove inexpediency, 1 Lave a perfect rigiit to say that the statement of lying is unproved. Mr Ilornsby began by saying that the stock-in-trade of Prohibitionists is lying. I asked for proof. He gives examples of indiscretion, except in one instance, where the charge of perjury was proven Talse in the Supreme Court, and I say most emphatically that the case is not proven. I knoft" that the Prohibitionists Mr Ilornsby refers to are very zealous, and it would be most remarkable if they did not make mistakes ; but I fiil to see why they should be branded as liars. I think they have reasons to be enthusiasts 011 the drink question, when we consider that it has Iven estimated l>y our Chief Justices, by gaolers, and by heads of Benevolent Institutions, that fully two-thirds (C 121,000) of the expenditure on justice, police, industrial ,-chools, charitable aid, Ac., is due to the drink traffic. if there were no drink tratlic it is reasonable to suppose that f idly one-fourth (t'l2 1,000) of the amount now derived from it would lie got from the increased sale of other commodities. From the convictions for drunkenness it has been estimated that Ave ha ve in this colony 700 adult habitual drunkards. Estimating the earnings of the average adult at .Clo, and that an habitual drunkard loses one fourth of his time, we have a loss of ,L'81,12-"> a year in wages through drink. The result to the finances of the colony if prohibition is carried may be estimated as follows : -Proportion of expenditure on justice, police, lunatic asylums, hospitals, industrial schools, charitable aid, iVC , 121,000: revenue from increased consumption of other commodities, £121.000: increased earnings of habitual drunkards, e]:t.l2".: total, I •'< "> s . 12~>. The present iv\enue from drink is I' IIMi.OOO. Thus there will be an annual gain to the colony by Prohibition of L' 02.125. In addition to this financial increase, we should sweep awav three-fourths of our moral blight and degradation, and gain immensely in health and happiness. '• >"o Treasurer.'' says Mr Gladstone, " need ever trouble himself about loss of drink revenue, for the saving in expenditure would far outweigh it." N.nv Sir, the Prohibitionists, many of them, are very shrewd business men, who have the interest of their country at heart, and when these men see such a wilful waste of money is it any wonder but that they will speak strongly ? It would be strange were it otherwise. I say this of the Prohibitionist.-:: so far as I know them, they have the interest of the manhood and womanhood of the colony at heart. I am sorry I cannot say so much of some of the anti-Prohibitionists. ,>.</. Take a few lines from the speech of Captain Russell, as given in the House on the Divorce Bill. " The innate modesty of woman had,'' he says, '■ even in their own minds, made adultery a greater crime on the part of woman than on the part of man. The whole world had held the crime of adultery on the part of a man less serious than on the part of woman. Man had strong natural instinct, and the gratification of that instinct was. he might say, almost the most powerful impulse of his existence. With woman, on the contrary, the instinct was maternal, and was very materially different to the powerful desire on the part c>f the man. The two crimes, therefore, differed essentially, inasmuch as in the one it was the application of the sexual instinct natural to man, while the instinct of woman was mostly maternal ; and not only so, but there was also the result of the crime. On the part of man there was the act of adultery committed, and morally wrong as it was with him, the crime, so far as he was concerned, terminated with its commission. With woman it was different if she committed adultery: and if being married, and the crime undiscovered, there was the probability of a strange strain of blood being introduced into the family. There was an adulteration of the family blood by the adultery of the woman, which did not result on the part of the man." Think of a man talking in such a strain in our House of Representatives, and contrast it with the noble power exerted by the Prohibitionists for the uplifting of the lowest dregs of society by removing the cause of the evil of drunkenness, weeping wives, ragged children, crime, povcuty, misery and shame, and a degraded people. The result of Prohibition would be sobriety, happy wives, laughing children, health, honesty, comfort, self-respect, and a prosperous people. If we, as ministers of the Gospel, simply ignored these things we would be as the Priest and Levite of old, who passed by on the other side. By silently allowing these evils to go tnichallenged we really have a hand in creating all the misery, sorrow, strife, and sinincident to the curse. I have, on more than one occasion, admired Mr Ilornsby's outspokenness on social evils, both by speech and pen, and I really think that he will see, if he I merely puts himself in our position for i a while, that Ave have just cause to use | strong language, and again, I repeat, there is a marked difference betAveen strong language borne out by fact and lying and deliberate falsehood. I admire the former, but I scorn the latter. —I am, &e., John- Hoskixg, Hastings, Oct. 29th, 1996.