INTEMPERANCE

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3763, 18 April 1907, Page 2

INTEMPERANCE

To the Editor.. : ' Sir, —In your issue of Saturday last I observed an article under the beading “Intemperance,” and as I have for years been interested in the battle against that gigantic evil, I laid myself-out to carefully peruse the article in question. The beginning of the article seemed alright, although the first sentence seemed to indicate that the writer did not know much about the subject he had undertaken to address the public of this district upon, but I was willing to pass that over. On reading further on, however, I began to see that the writer did know something of what he was writing about, although he had placed an altogether erroneous title to his article. The object of the article is evidently an endeavour to throw dust in the eyes, with a view to perpetuate the present drinking habits of the community. The writer who undertakes to address intelligent men • should be careful of his language and his metaphors. In the article in question the writer so completely defeats his own argument that the whole thing becomes ludicrous. He talks some nonsense about seed time and harvest and poisonous plants, and tells us that the instinct of the ‘ ‘ beasts of the fields ” keeps them from eating the latter, but if they do not observe the law of instinct and eat them, then they must die. If the writer of that article had any knowledge of the pains a farmer takes to preserve his animals from poisonous weeds, he would never have used such an illustration. Why, if a farmer saw a poisonous plant in bis field and the safety of his cattle affected, he would tear it out and destroy it without hesitation. He is not going to trust to natural instinct. He removes the danger and assures the safety of the creatures in which he is interested. I therefore turn the illusiration of the writer on “Intemperance” against his own argument, and in favour of ‘ ‘ No-license. ’ ’ If there are men—and God knows there are many—who are being destroyed soul and body by their indulgence in strong drink, then remove the poison spots (the public drinking bar) and you make men sober and ensure their moral and physical safety. The writer in question talks rubbish about “Society.” In this he also flatly contradicts himself; to quote his own words “ But Society laughs at what they call the ‘drunks,’ and glcats with sensual eyes at his insanity. ’ ’ If this is the attitude oi Society towards the poor unfortunate inebriate, surely any reasonable individual would hesitate before committing his reformation to such an institution. Prohibition, and not Society, is the short road to reformation, and if the - writer on “Intemperance” is sincere in his desire for reformation he would be working in their ranks, and not indulging in platitudes that can be pf no service in such an aim, but rather deceive and waylay the unwary.—Youra etc., For Prohibition.