THE TEMPERANCE LEAGUE AND MR. HAMER.

New Zealander, Volume 10, Issue 887, 14 October 1854, Page 3

THE TEMPERANCE LEAGUE AND MR. HAMER.

To the Editor of the Hew-Zbalander. Sir, —I have just seen a letter in to-day’s * Southern Gross’’ signed <* T, Hamer,” and I have barely time to request to be allowed to reply to one allegation in it of which I feci bound to take notice. Mr. Hamer reports that at a meeting of the Council of the League, 1 stated “ I believed the League had limited its principles in its applicato public houses.” I have never for a moment believed in such intended limitation of the principles of the League, and I certainly did not , as alleged by Mr. Hamer, state at the meeting of the Council that I did so believe. lam sorry to be obliged to gipt so fiat a contradiction in a public newspaper to .any. thing written under the signature of a person'of his profession ;bu - cannot allow myself and my views to be so grossly misrepresented by any one in so public a manner. I am quite astounded when 1 see one in Mr. Hamer’s responsible position “earnestly hoping,” in a public print, “ that the intentions of such a League should be frustrated,” and suggesting the refusing of enrolment of names of members, —talking about its being“ highly dangerous to ’ call for Government legislation on social questions” “Christian ministers belieing the power of religion when asking for civil acts to accomplish moral ends ” —recommending “ hands off” in curing men of vice, &c. But when T recollect that. Mr. Hamer was himself the Secretary of the Preliminary Committee of the present League ( whose avowed object from the outset was to call for legislation similar to the American “Maine Law”) —that without doubt (but for my suggesting at the General Meeting _that the appointment should rest in the Council) he would now have been the general Secretary of the League,—and that he now recommends ‘another League to promote the civil act for the accomplishment of the moral end of shutting up public houses, and leaving intoxicating drinks to be sold be auctioneers, and merchants —I cannot find words to express my sense of his inconsistency. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, A. \Y. Mansard, Friday Evening, Oct. 13.

To the Editor of the New Zealander. Sir,— Seeing my name, in connection with others, in the Southern Cross of this morning, in a letter signed “ T. Hamer,” and used in pucka manner as may lead the public astray, in reference to the opinions of myself and others on the object of the Temperance League, I solicit the insertion of the following remarks by way of reply. In starling, then, I would here beg to inform the writer that however much I may respect the man in the main as a citizen, &c., I shall bog- to

be excused from prostrating myself to his erroneous opinions, or to what I conceive to be die wretchedly bad logic, which, in ray judgment, and according to ray perhaps circumscribed powers of discrimination, lie has moat unquestionably exhibited by way of justification of bis conduct in abruptly leaving the Temperance League ; and the more so, when such error, and such false logic, are apparently brought to bear against such a philanthropic, such a patriotic, and, in every way, such a noble cause. Mr. Hamer has, in my opinion, taken a step in the wrong direction; and, for his own public reputation, the sooner he halts the better—for “ the way of the transgressor is hard” —instead of diligently seeking for what he may conceive to be the best plans to recommend for scattering the seeds of disunion, so as to successfully defeat the very object he formerly appeared to have so much at heart.

Now, in answer to his bad logic—or what perhaps would be more plain, more appropriate, and more generally understood, his inconsistency—it is only necessary to try him by his own standard —to quote liis own language—and, by a comparison of his own remarks at separate times—-not only immediately after be lost his amendment in Council (which, by-the-bye, was only seconded pro forma , and only voted for by himself,) but also in his letter as it appears in the Gross of this morning. ’ It is well known to every member of the new Council who was present at the meeting on Tuesday afternoon, that Mr. Hamer’s amendment only received the single vote and support of lumsilf—and seeing this to be the case, he afterwards retired, having declined to take any further part in the proceedings. On leaving the room, addi easing the Chairman and all present, ha stated that his reasons for so doing were because be could not go the whole length of the League. And here I would wish to draw the close attention of readers to his own words, which were remarkable as corning from one who disagreed so widely from our rendering of the Declaration, and one who was on that account about to leave us. “ I cannot,” said he, “ consistently sign that Declaration, and I shall therefore beg to withdraw myself from the movement for reasons which I have already given. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I wish you every success—you may succeed'—l shall be well pleased if you gain your object—but, for my part, I very much doubt it—l am afraid yon won’t. However, I hope you will go forward and prosper.” A short time after lie thus addmsld the Council, he took up his pen and, wrote, for public information, to this effect, -which appears to breathe the same sentiment—“ My present aim is not to injure the League, but to enlighten the public ; and so far from being considered the enemy of the new Association, I hope I shall ha considered its best friend.” Now, Mr. Editor, I wish to show what this onr wished-to-be-considered best friend writes in another part of his letter, and thus allow people to judge for themselves concerning Mr. Hamer’s consistency or bad logic. He goes on to aay—“After the above explanation I refused to cooperate further with the League, and stated then, and repeat now, that I earnestly hope that the intentions of the League will be frustrated, which can only be done by persons refusing to enrol themselves as members.”

It is for Mr. Hamer to show the sympathy that exists, in the language uttered at the Council, with the above ; and also to reconcile the one part of his letter with the other if he can. In th.s way Mr. Hamer wishes ns prosperity and success, and in this way he-exhibits his friendship—namely, by laying down (as he vainly supposes) the very best plans for nipping our movement in the hud, and consequently ot defeating our ultimate object. Well, if such is Mr. Hamer’s desires for our success ? and if we tire' to take this as a true and correct specimen of his friendship, I, as one of the Council, at once exc'aim, “ Save ns from our friendsl”

Our professed friend, Mr. Hamer, who wishes us so much success, says—“ The aims of the League are, to my mind, thoroughly mi-Englidi. They are American, it is true, but so are slavery and democratic tyranny.” Now .democracy is generally understood to be government by the people—and how the people can tyrannise-over the people is for Mr. Hamer to show, party or faction is not the people, and when the Government consists of either, it is not democracy. But. even if it were so, as be asserts, that the Council should be charged with tyranny, then he is not justified in wishing the. League success. Since be has himself alluded to this democratic tyranny, I would like him to explain what, kind of tyranny we arc to call that which he exhibited in his own conduct , merely because the Council did not agree with him in his rendering of the Declaration? How many times did he throw down the challenge “ that if they (the Council) would call another Public Meeting he wouMbe bound to carry an amendment against them”— and thus endeavouring to “ bounce” or coerce us into his own views. I think if he were to make the trial he would be still more mortified to find that the people of Auckland would neither at his dictation or by the force of Ms arguments be compelled to vote black was white one day, and vice versa the next. Mr. Hamer took a prominent part in the discussion at the Public Meeting —and if the people did not understand him, it was either because they were too dull of comprehension, or Mr. Hamer failed in making the subject sufficiently plain. ■ There is another part of his letter, with the premises and conclusions of which I cannot agree, and must also condemn as bad logic. While he denounces the present League for going too far—much farther than he is prepared to go : he maintains that “ the wealthy and the drunken will find the means of indulgence much the same as they do now.” Will they, indeed. Then where is the use of another League, whose object would be toshut public-houses only,and allow drink to he sold at auction rooms and by merchants? Would not such a one be liable to the same charge of being vitiated by importation ? The very ground of objection he brings against the present League could be brought with more force against the new League he recommends, and it is equal to telling us that neither will be of any public utility. I never said what Mr. Hamer represents me as having said, that I understood from the first promoters of the League that their object was only to close the public houses. What I said was, that, such a rumour had been widely circulated ; that, in consequence of that, I had prepared a resolution to submit to the meeting showing- that tbeobject of the proposed League did not go far enough ; but that afterthe explanation given by the mover of the Declaration I was better satisfied, and kept it in my pocket. I urged the Council to entertain the question raised by Mr. Hamer— 7 and I did so for the purpose of arriving at unity amongst ourselves, as I knew full well that there were parties who would be proud to see us divided, and consequently weak and ineffectual. In conclusion, I would beg to ask what claims another League would have to support, unless, indeed, an advocacj of half measures ? The public meetings have been against such a course. The press would render lum but little support. xhe New Zealander is in favour of the present League —and the Southern Cross would condemn -Mi. Hamers as one of class legislation, for hear what he says—“ I would' recommend that another League of Temperance be formed on the principle of prohibiting by law the sale of intoxicating drinks in public houses, but leaving its importation and sale to the merchants and at auction, as is now the case.”

A better reply to this new tangled proposition could not be given than that contained in the leading article of the Cross. “We have already stated, with reference to the object to be obtained by the Temperance League, that there is but one mode by which class legislation in the matter can be avoided—namely, by total prohibition. If any are to be restrained from indulgence, leb all be restrained —employers and working men alike. Unity and perseverance is my motto until we obtain our objtct.—Yours, &c., War, Griffin. Auckland, Oct. 14.