Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, DEC. 1, 1896. Two Sides to Every Question.

Manawatu Herald, 1 December 1896, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, DEC. 1, 1896. Two Sides to Every Question.

It is indisputable that there are two sidei to every question and that the arguments en one side seem excellent until the other side is heard. To-night tho prohibitionists have invited one of their most fluent orators to address the Foxton residents on the benefits of prohibition, and prohibition being that which they are most anxiou9 to obtain, they are to be credited with having acted very wisely in so doing. It is not surprising to find that those who do not favour prohibition have determined to give the public their opinion on this subject as viewed from their stand-point of liberty. We should not wish for anything better than an open, fair and square, review of the different ways pettlera view the question that is one of very great moment to either side, and one which is to be put to the test of a vole on Friday. No one, we imagine, will have a word to say in favour of drunkenness, as we believe all are upholders of the advantages of temperance, but there is likely to be a great deal said in favour of I encouraging ttmperance, by example, by suasion, and even by stronger means, and a great deal said about the extraordinary course of dictating as to what all shall drink because a few are unable to restrain themselves. The prohibitionists have bad for some years a particularly good time, no opposition having been raised to what was understood as their mission cf mercy, in reclaiming drunkard3 and in making known the evils of drink ; in fact they have received much assistance from the moderate drinkers who have in return been assailed as being worse than tha drunkard?. Hard words however hurt nobody and the ease the prohibitionists were allowed to introduce certain amendments into the Colonial liquor laws has fooled them on to tha point of desiring legislation to prevent every colonist from taking alcoholic liquor of any sort. The position is unique, for we have an attempt made by a small minority of male adults to dictate, with the assistance of " their Bisters, their cousins, and their aunts," to the remainder of the male adults. The cry for such repression, would never have been made had not woman suffrage been granted, so by this we are assured of the truth of our assertion. And let the settlers think, who are the men who ory so loudly for us all to be prohibited ? Are they men who have willingly denied themselves drink as an example for their brother's sake? or are the mnjority of them men who are only restrained from ill behaviour by the pledges they have taken ? We are not going to express our opinion which of the two the adult male prohibitionists are, we can leave that to those who know them best, but if the majority belong to the latter category, is it fair or advisable that thoy should urge legislation affecdng tho comfort of many, simply that the temptation they find so hard to resist, should be removed ? We do not pas3 laws for the few but the many, and if once the colonists permit one of their rights to be prohibited, then they may look for many more to be retrenched, and after drink then food, then there may be sumptuary enactments, till the life of a man will be made most miserable. Our prohibitionists are sure to say, think of the women. Do they by the acts they are urging upon them? The wife of a drunkard has a miserable time, but we know they are but few, fortunately, but the prohibitionists are urging every wife to vote without consideration of her husband's wishes, which may in time cause a wider breach in matrimonial arrangements than drink has ever done, or is likely to. The fullest faith and confidence between man and wife is the backbone of matrimonial happiness and one of the worst acts yet done by prohibitionists is this suggestion that a wife should act secretly and without consultation with her husband. Some of our local prohibitionists chuckle and ask "You object to prohibition, and yet are you not prohibited from murder ?" As the law stands at present the hotelkeeper is prohibited from murdering a drunkard as he is restrained from supplying a man who is known to be drunk. The law does not prohibit murder, or else there would be no murders. It steps in in time when it can, ii not, the murderer is punished. The liquor law and the criminal law are now on an even keel, but the prohibitionists want us not only to prohibit murder, but to prohibit the use of knives, guns, sticks, and any other article by which murder could be done. This will make it plain that the prohibition now eought for is a very advanced step to any law at present in force in the colony.