MR. HARRY ATMORE IN REPLY.

Motueka Star, Volume IV, Issue 177, 1 May 1903, Page 4

MR. HARRY ATMORE IN REPLY.

To the Editor. Sir: Kindly allow me space to reply to your correspondent, E. S. Dukes, whose last letter appeared in your issue of Friday last. He has shewn considerable ingenuity in describing circles round the main point, without ever once approaching it. This J® 4 me observe, is the chef-d’oeuvre of all Prohibition tacticians. He first of all places a wilful misconstruction on a sentence in my former letter.. I 4 pointed out that-the quarter of a pint of liquor which each man averages in this colony is about one-sixth of the amount consumed by a lady when making a few afternoon calls. An honest debater would see the statemen c re the ladies had reference to the amount of liquor consumed in tea drinking The term “liquor” was correctly applied to tea. Ihe doctor wilfully asserts that my statement meant that ladies in making afternoon calls consumed one and a half pints intoxicating liquor, but surely the doctor has net been so long in heathenish parts (I understand he has lived in China - ) that he has forgotten that ladies usually drink tea when calling. What a miserable subterfuge to resort to to attempt to score a point. Surely it amounts to a confession ot weakness. *

I referred him to Christ’s own action and right here let me observe that a Prohibitionist clergyman, when preaching a sermon on this subject, never refers to Christ’s example. The reason is not hard to find. I hey cannot find support for their arguments when they, consider Christ’s teaching. Think what this means. They claim that Prohibition is a highly moral movement, and yet we know that Christ the Founder of our moral code, was a moderate dripk^. Christ condemned drunkenness bpfi djmksin moderation. In plain English’ He'w&s a Moderate. He had doTfi, there His action is right, and that action is diametrically opposed to ProHbjjlon". ‘‘Sj] al Ul ot the J ud ß e of all the earth do right? Christ condemned drunkenness, and yet Dr Dukes, by a reference to tiiu Orcek word gikos weakly attempts to raise the question of the non-intoxicating nature of the wine in use at the time. The Greek word o/tios, “ like the flowers that bloom m the spring,” has nothing to do with the oase. The pertinent question is, How could Christ condemn drunkenness if the liquor was not intoxicating ? How does that affect the Greek word ohzos now doctor ? The correct interpretation of that '■ vo . rd this case is “herring across the trail, for that is what the doctor intended it to be.

R-2!;i he -?2 Ct ?. r - e y ide , ntl y does not k now his Bible if he thinks theliquor was not intoxicating Let me give him a few quotations from the grand old Book. The first mention of wine occurs in Genesis, when “Noah planted a vineyard, drank of the wine, and was drunken.’ How about oinos, doctor ? Numerous other references in the Old Testament may be quoted, but the foregomg will suffice. Coming to the New 1 estament, we find Christ (Luke xxi, tav) saying, “Take heed to yourself, lest at anv time your hearts be overcharged with suk ’ feiting ana drunkenness.” In Romans xiiL 13V, St Paul says, “Let us walk honestly, not in rioting and drunkenness.” Also in Corinthians, where he admonishes ’the biethren there for allowing the feast of the sacrament to degenerate into a drunken least. In Ephesians v i 8v f we find “ " ot T? u runk , wit . h wi ne, wherein is excess” In Thessalomans v 7 v, They that be drunk” etc Finally, m Acts i i 3 v, where St Peter replying to the charge made against the Apost es of being filled with new wine said. These men are not drunken, seeing it is but the third hour of the dayj etc Christs parable, new wine into old bottles also pioves the fermented nature of the wine. Now Christ was Omniscient, could therefore see the Prohibition movement and yet His teaching and actions are odposecl to it. Then what becomes of Prohibition ?

Christ made wine. This is certainly not the action of a Prohibitionist, and if the wine was not of the same nature ias that which it replaced, then Christ’s miracle was not what it is supposed to be. To all this irrefragible evidence re the alcoholic nature of the wine, the learned medico of Motueka, with charming irrele vancy, weakly says, in effect, “ But what about the Greek word oinos? Well wlur about it, doctor? ’

Another weak link in the doctor’s chain of argument lies in the fact that he did not ‘ reply to my reference to Christ’s actions by referring to the same authority. He actually had the audacity to quote St. Paul 1 he omission to quote from the Higher Authority is a confession of weakness One can see the weakness of quotin'* the disciple or apostle against the Master ° Reverting to a secular parallel, would one seriously quote the opinion of a subaltern

against that of Lord Roberts on militaj-y tactics ? I think not. i Replying to the doctor’s remarks jre the medical aspect of the.question, let me again refer to what the eminent doctor, Sir Dyce Duckworth, who was knighted for his attainments in the medical world, say-. Alter 35 years experience of examining tor the life assurance societies, he remarks :-j—•• T affirm that there is iicf evidence to prove that persons who properly employ alcohol suffer any damage or deterioration of the t xtures, and I have before now stated. • hat the lives of the truly moderate drinkers of alcohol are probably ou the whole better ' and more useiuljfnan those of total abstainers.” In replying to this. Dr Dukes does not have the honesty to say whethir lie c msiders it right or wrong, neither does he quote that Greek word oinos ; he simply says, " Suppose he were right,” etc. I The doctor knows, or should know, that the great evil afflicting New Zealand p not drink'. The most prolific cause of insanity is not drink. Surely the doctor knows this. I f half the energy wasted in intemperate speaking by Prohibitionists were directed to combatting the evil which is grealer far chan all other evils, all right thinking men could join forces with them, but this greater evil is never touched on by them. One cannot do more than make a brief allusion to this subject in this correspondence, but I unhesitatingly assert that the Juggernaut of Passion (in the strict sense of the latter word) claims more victims for the grave, the asylum, and the ranks of those whose memory and mind have become tilings of the past than does the excess of drink curse. lam not defending drunkenness, but I affirm that Prohibition is not a remedy. Drunkenness is decreasing rapid y. It does not decrease in Prohibition btates, and the reason is patent to anyone. The doctor points triumphantly to Clutha, but did he ever read the report of the Police Commission, or that of the Committee of the Anglican Synod of Dunedin, which enquired into the question ? He further says he cannot meet me in debate, because, forsooth, he “ does not know me personally.” 1 cannot take that as a reason. He was not so punctilious at the outset, for he attacked me, neither did he consider it ungentlemanly to do so in a different paper to that in which my figures, etc., appeared, leaving it to chance whether 1 saw his attack or not. However, I repeat my challenge re debate, and am quite willing to meet him in Motueka or Nelson. Now, in conclusion, let me have one word direct to the doctor. If (as lam afraid you v-.e 3 ,! do, considering the weakness of your Arguments) you re!use to meet me in debate, and prefer to answer through the medium of the paper, please remember that Euclid taught other figures in addition to circles. Don’t describe so many of the latter, but come along a straight line and attack the points I have given. Don’t forget that you. whilst condemning Moderates, have not proved moderate drinking injurious, nor according to Christ’s teaching, immoral, and please remember that Sir D. Duckworth is probably as eminent an authority as Dr Dukes, of Motueka. Hoping the doctor will accept challenge, and thanking you, Mr Editor, in anticipation of this insertion, I am, etc., Harry Atmore. Nelson, April 29, ’O3. (In justice to Dr Dukes„ it is only right to

state that his first communication was a reply to statements made in a leaflet issued by Mr H. Atmore, and not to a letter inserted in a Nelson paper. He was there lore quile within his rights to net as lie did, especially as the leaflet was only partly circulated by one paper and there was no evidence to show mat 0 had net been distributed through, other channels.—Ed M.S.j