PROHIBITION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 388, 19 August 1911, Page 5

PROHIBITION.

To the Editor. Sir, —With your kind permission, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies in Miss Hughes' otherwise charming lecture. The "pure juice of the grape" she mentions having seen used in parts of Australia has its drawbacks. Anyone squeezing grapes into a cup in the manner described will not get a clear solution, but a most unholy mes3 of pulp containing an acid called "malic" which under certain conditions develops intestinal troubles of a serious nature; that the children mentioned did not suffer was a lucky thing for them; I would advise anyone to be careful how they repeated the experiment. With regard to King Solomon and his red wine; that of which much misrepresentation has occurred, the explanation is very simple. The wine in question was a dark red liquid, containing the heaviest percentage of spirit of any of the Biblical winesl—s per cent. —and on account of its potency it was only used on special occasions. The "strong drink" mentioned in other parts of the Bible is the same wine—"shechar," rather an omnious name. Other wiiie of the Bible were freely drunk, and they all contained from G per cent, to 10 par cent of spirit. The Bible is no friend to the Prohibitionist, moderation being the keynote throughout. Wine was prohibited in two instances only, and for special reasons during a limited time: Leviticus, 10th chapter, and Numbers, 9th chapter. My information is from the works of Josephus, Fuerstus, and Gesenius, all standard Hebrew writers. Miss Hughes should have mentioned these facts. Dr Horsley, who favours their side of the question, is a very able man; but there are many men on our side equally good. Dr Mortimer Granville says: "Alcohol is an integral though subsidiary article of diet, and within certain limits a food, and subserves useful purposes in the performance of the usual functions of our organism." He also says he has never lost one case of influenza where a reliance on alcohol and good food had been rigourously maintained. Drs Austin, Pavev and Dupre, with many other?, agree with him. May I add that in a humble way I have studied the effects of alcohol in the form of pure whiskey on the human body for some 45 years as analyst and chemist, and I have invariably found it not only a re'iable stimulant, but a tonic and digestive agent of no mean power; taken as a sensible man would take it. Emotional legislation is of little use in dealing with the question of stimulants. State control is the only remedy, and a pure article sold. A well watered whiskey, a light ale, a good bodies stout, with light wines, are all the stimulants needed. Brandy, rum and gin ought to be swept out of existence, for they are utterly useless. In conclusion I, wish to say that I detest drunkenness as much as the most ardent abstainer, but with the great mass of the moderate party, I bitterly resent any interference with my right to use in moderation the stimulants I have found beneficial to my system during a very healthy life. —I am, etc., A. A. LISSAMAN.