PROFESSOR SALMOND'S PAMPHLET.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1062, 28 October 1911, Page 4

PROFESSOR SALMOND'S PAMPHLET.

Professor Salmond is a very old, very venerable and very benevolent gentleman, who was once a Presbyterian Minister, then a theological professor, and now professor of mental and moral scmpce in the University of Otago. Tlis classes are among the most popular in that University, and the worthy professor has been a capable instructor of youth. The pamphlet recently published by him is, however, one of the most striking examples of the errors and fallacies against which he declaims in class.

It has been reviewed with pitiless logic by Mr A S. Adams, Mr A. R. Atkinson and the Rev. R. Wood. With the greatest ease his confusion of thought is exposed. Mr A. R. Atkinson has set in concise form the criticism to which professor Salmond’s pamphlet lays itself open: I. Professor Salmond’s attack upon the Prohibition Party for reckless and inaccurate statements recoils upon his own head. 2 His unfamiliarity with the rudiments of the liquor problem is so profound as to suggest either a voluntary blindness or an invincible obsession.

3. His attitude to every aspect of the question is that of an unbalanced partisan. 4. His historical analogies are fanciful, fallacious and grossly misleading.

5. The Professor’s theory of the functions of the State has no foundation in principle, authority or practice. 6. The Professor’s appeal to abstract principles, on this and other questions, consists mainly of an unreasonable assertion of his own prejudices.

7. His treatment of the problem from its physiological side is a parody equally of science and of common sense. 8. His talent for misquotation and misinterpretation is so amazing as to amount almost to genius, and does not spare even the sacred writings. 9. That the Professor wrests the scriptures to the detriment of Prohibition b> the same means which have pitted them against science and philanthropy in the past; and, by a loose application of a smattering of text learning, has arrived at a conclusion entirely opposed to the spirit of the New Testament.

If any of our readers have had the perseverance to wade through Professor Salmond’s pamphlet, we would recommend them to read any of the three replies made to it. They are more readable, they are based on facts and their logic is conclusive. This is more than we could say for the old Professor’s pamphlet.