THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4896, 28 October 1925, Page 2

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

(Extended Report by Arrangement.)

anti-prohibition address MR. F. BURKE AT PAEROA. There was a large attendance at the Gaiety Theatre, Paeroa, last evening to hear the anti-prohibition address delivered by Mr Fred Burke, the well-known continuance advocate. Hits' Worship the Mayor (Mr W. Marshall) presided, and before introducing the speaker he reminded the meeting that the people would be called on next week to exercise a vote on one of the most contentious issues ever placed before the country. He was pleased to preside at the meeting, because he thought it was right and only proper that people should heai both sides of the argument and study the matter in a- fair and broadminded manner. It was only by studying the views of one’s fellow citizens that a state of tolerance could prevail. In asking for a fair hearing for the| speaker the Mayor said that as. a Britisher addressing a British audience he felt sure Mr Burke would be given a fair and patient healing. Mr Burke, who is an eloquent speaker, held his audience in rapt attention throughout his long address. His breezy style, combined with & ring of genuine sincerity, appealed to the audience, and the duties of the chairman were consequently very light. AN ELOQUENT ADDRESS.

As a preliminary Mr Burke stressed the point that he wished to make his position quite clear. Some thought he was: an advocate for drink, but such was not the case. He stood against prohibition by enactment because he was convinced that to adopt it would not be in the best interests, of the Dominion. Any person who advocated drinking to excess was to his mind not sincere. He asked that prejudices be put aside and that the audience should adopt a broadminded outlook. .It might be .that there were evils attributable to liquor, but prohibition was not the remedy. Prohibitionists blamed the* commodity, but he blamed .the consumer who drank to excess. About a century ago the tempera.ee movement started, and it was quite a good one, but the prohibition of to-dgy was to temperance as Bolshevism was to social reform. Prohibition had actually thrown temperance back, because nowadays young people would not listen to. a temperance lecture because they thought the speakers urging it were prohibitionists. As the Communists had thrown back reform legislation, so had the prohibitionists thrown back temperance. REVERSION OF MAINE.

It was unfair, ’said Mr Burke, to quote only America, bu,t he desired to speak of the State of Maine, which adopted prohibition in 1851. Three generations had been brought up in that State under prohibition, yet Maine did not stand out physically, morally, or financially as .the leading State. That proved' that prohibition was not an ideal state. In America there had never been a referendum approving the prohibition laws, and thp American Government was not democratic. It would undoubtedly surprise the audience to learn that when the Volstead Act was pasged in the Congress there were 201 members absent when the vote was taken. This snatch vote division did > not by any means represent American public opinion. If. the prohibitionists were correct when they said that America Was happy under prohibition, why was it, Mr Burke asked, that the antisaloon league and ,the bootleggers were both fighting against a referendum an the subject. The prohibitionistjs themselves admitted that the countries mentioned had tried the experiment and had repealed the Acts of enforcement, and consequently a hard word could be used concerning the principle of those officials who were endeavouring to introduce prohibition to this country. A referendum on the liquor question in America was unknown to the people, and it was as well to keep that fact in mind, as it put a different complexion on how America went dry. 4 ' POLITICS AND CHURCH. When prohibition was crushed, then temperance would come into its own. While they had prohibition they were impeding the cause of temperance, just as Bolshevism impeded social reform. The biggest problem confronting churches to-day was to keep the congregations numerically strong. At least 50 per cent, of the young people who attended Bible classes and Sunday schools did not attend church in mature years, and one of the reasons for the failure of the chur'ch was that they were getting tob much politics from the pulpit. He was very pleased to say that his own church, the Anglican Church, allowed him to think and vote for himself, but there were various sects or gchisms in which a butcher was a street-corner preacher to-day and a “Reverend” tomorrow, and that was the 1 class of people who were trying to educate others to their own narrow-minded point of view. The extremist was Responsible for that state of affairs. He (the speaker) was admitted by the churches to be the most formidable opponent of prohibition in Australasia. VIEWS OF EXTREMISTS. As a student of mental philosophy he had come to the conclusion that prohibitionists could be divided into three classes. (1) The man or Woman who honestly believed that prohibition was the remedy. He respected the sincerity of these people, but unfortunately they were misled and did not get the truth from their prohibition friends, and not only were these people the financial backers but the numerical strength of the prohibition movement. (2) They had the extremist.. The extremist was born an extremist. On the prohibition platform they would find the extremist—the man, for instance, who claimed to be a reformed man. Once he was a drunkard or an atheist. This man wtent from one extreme to another. From a drunkard he became a prohibitionist and wanted to stop any other man from getting in moderation what he had abused. There was no cure

for the extremist, who was found in all spnercs of life. They could read in the papers of. certain people passing resolutions against racing, tobacco, the length of girls’ skirts, or against jazz dancing. They were not distinct and separate bodies who passed these resolutions. They were the same people every time. These people were not fit and proper persons to govern humanity. The extreme mental outlook of these peoplei could hot be altered by Parliament any more than the drunkard could be cured by prohibition. Had they realised the farcical stand taken by the man who said that he was once a drunkard but now a prohibitionist ? Was net such a man a living example that an act of Parliament was not necessary to cure drunkenness ? There were twoi problems before them. , One was. to get back (statesmen instead of politicians, and the other was to get back Christianity instead of animosity. It was the extreme type in Russia which was not only aspiring to govern their own country but the whole world. The same thing could be said of the AntiSaloon League in America. PROSPEROUS NEW ZEALAND. New Zealand was. the most prosperous, healthy, sober country in the world, said Mr Burke. He was able to say so as the result of- his observations and because his naval career had enabled him ,to visit every country in the .world. America was a century behind New Zealand in legislation and general social life. The'prohibitionists, when addressing audiences, endeavoured to paint a dismal picture of New, Zealand. He had the Government statistics, which' showed that New Zealand was not a drunken country’. If a New Zealander drank too much his family knew that he had obtained the liquor at an hotel, whereas in America the places frequented by the unscrupulous people engaged in the bootlegging business were of a different kind altogether. None of the evils attributable to liquor were comparable with those attributable to such places of infamy and houses of assignation kept by slygrog scoundrels. Again, the birth rate, in New Zealand was infinitely higher than that in America, and the death rate was lower, while there was less tuberculosis disease. The figures were from the Government’s Official Handbook, which was. irrefutable, and which compared the figures of New Zealand with other countries. These figures stated clearly that the Dominion was in a way far ahead of America. America .should copy New Zealand laws, not New Zealand imitate crank legislation. Personally he felt resentment at a man lauding America and claiming that its prosperity was due to prohibition when it was known that that prosperity was due to the nation’s three years of neutrality during the war. ’(Applause.) PROOF OF MANHOOD. The spoilt child wag the first to fall in matured life because he has .not been trained to resist temptation at the age when the brain was forming its characteristics The proof of manhood was the •strength of character to resist temptation. Drunkenness was. decreasing because the mind of humanity generally was getting mere refined. Prohibitibnists sought to blame the commodity. He blamed the abuser of the commodity, and in his opinion this weakness could not be cured by a Parliamentary pen. SCOUNDRELS CONVICTED.

Prohibitionists collectively were not of the type to produce leaders, and it gave opportunities to the unscrupulous scoundrel to get in and join the Anti-Saloon League. Mr Burke quoted a number of instances. A dry agent in Cincinnatti had inserted advertisements in .the papers asking for information concerning bootleggers. Then, when he got it, he went to the addresses given and demanded hush money three m'pnthjs in advance. He proved to be a deacon in the Baptist Church, anclhad led prayers every Wednesday night. Again, in Georgia, the Rev. Chas. E. Jones was appointed State Superintendent of the antiliqucr laws, yet his two sons were convicted as bootleggers. Five cases of officials in the Anti-Saloon League being convicted were quoted, including .that of a superintendent who had preached prohibition for 27 years and who is now a convict after being proved the biggest bootlegger in Missouri, namely, the Rev. W. H. Schlipp, a Methodist bishop. THE SUMMARY.

Summarising some of his main points towards the termination of his address Mr Burke said that while he blamed the abuser*, the prohibitionist blamed the commodity. Prohibition had failed wherever tried, and the men behind the movement, instead of assisting in the righteous cause of temperance, were doing their best to damn it. Under continuance they had a licensed trade; under prohibition they had an illicit liquor traffic.

The moral support of the community made our laws efficacious, the speaker continued. The prohibitory law had failed everywhere because no moral support was behind it. Prohibition did away with the scientific brewer, who understood the commodities, and replaced him with the unscrupulous bootlegger. In conclusion Mr Burke had a word to say about, the tactics of the prohibition party, who, instead of attacking his. arguments, were attacking him personally. This was tHe 'last resort of the person who had exhausted all his grounds of argument. Relative to an advertisement published, by the prohibition party concerning an affair in which he was involved in Austra’ia, the speaker explained that he had obtained from what he had considered h reliable source data, bearing on the particular subject in question. He used this material for an address, but on finding that it Was ill-founded, actuated by a full, sense of British justice he instantly published an apology. Could any man, he asked, do more ? (Applause.)

Mr Burke then delivered a final peroration and insisted that when a speaker of the opposing side came to Paeroa the audience must insist on his quoting only from the highest, and therefore the true, unbiased records, namely, Government documents. “I

have volumes of propaganda emanating from trade journals, and no doubt the prohibitionist can produce an equal amount compiled by professional ‘drys,’ but in view of my having only quoted from Government papers I demand in fair play that my opponents do likewise ; and you people must insist on that.” Mr Burke, after thanking the audience for he patient hearing accorded him, exhorted his hearers .to weigh the question very carefully before making a decision. The speaker was heartily applauded on resuming his seat. QUESTIONS. On inviting the audience to submit questions to Mr. Burke, Mr R. L. Fursdon asked why a country like America had not scrapped prohibition. Mr Burke said that the only people opposed to a referendum were the AntiSaloon League'and the bootleggers. In reply to Mr Fursden’s second question Mr Burke said the loss of revenue occasioned by the carrying of prohibition had been more than made up by America’s three years of neutrality. America’s election issue at subsequent periods had been economic and was not a true referendum in reference to liquor. The liquor question- had never been taken as a platform plank by American Congressmen. The speaker said that he was not there to instruct the audience when replying to Mr Fursden, but endeavoured to show them that prohibition was not a remedy for the evils of liquor. In reply to Mr Beagley .the speaker said that it was Mr Volstead who had been responsible for the framing of the Volstead Act. Mr Burke was called upon to answer several other questions, and his answers were given in a.full and straight' forward manner, though on some occasions his replies evoked roars of laughter against the questioner. A hearty vote of thanks to the speaker for his lucid explanation of the problem was proposed and carried with hearty applause. In acknowledging the thanks Mr Burke referred to the fact that his chairman, \yho, he understood, was apposed to his views, had been sufficiently broad-minded enough to preside that evening. He then called' on the audience to show their appreciation of the action of .the Mayor, by according him a hearty vote bf thanks. This was carried with acclamation.