Prohibition in Canada.

Hastings Standard, Issue 178, 23 November 1896, Page 4

Prohibition in Canada.

The way is just now being paved for a vigorous Prohibition campaign in Canada —the first in the history of the Confederation, says the Canadian correspondent of the Otago Daily Times. Since the acees-ion of the new Ministry the l'limier has announced his intent'on of taking a plebiscite from the ptople 011 the question of total Prohiliibion. This may occur within a year or two, and would inevitably be preceded by a great dead of public discussion. At the present time, however, there is nothing approaching an aroused public sentiment on the question. Practical temperance, with an undoubted decrease of the evils springing from the sale of liquor, has advanced very much during the past 20 years, but temperance organisations have almost disappeared. Nevertheless, the submission of a plebiscite would certainly awaken much of the feeling that lies dormant, and bring about the union of the temperance forces. As to the outcome of the campaign it is difficult to make a forecast. The history of temperance legislation in Canada daes not afford good ground for the hope that a prohibitory measure could be made effective under existing conditions. Between 1875 and InOO a series of temperance waves swept over most of the provinces, and during that- period the local option law, known as the Scott Act, was put into operation in many counties. The result was most unsatisfactory. It brought about much litigation and fraud, and utterly failed to prohibit the sale and consumption of liquor. As a consequence there is not now in the great province of Ontario a single country in which the Scott Act prevails. It has been repealed and discarded. The only prohibitory law which seems to work is that which each man passes for himself. Men and women who work and vote for the adoption of a drastic law will not as>ist in its enforcement. That has been ( ur experience. In Ontario a plebiscite was taken in 1893, and on a list of 523,991 voters 212,97b' voted against the measun ," vhile barely 58 per cei.t. of the total \ote was polled. Between active opposition and settled indiffer- j ence there does not seem to be that I

overwhelming sentiment in the country which alone can make a prohibitive measure effective. The question, too, is complicated with considerations of revenue Josses and compensation to holders of vested interests.