PARTIAL PROHIBITIONISTS. The Fear of "Clause Nine."

Free Lance, Volume V, Issue 214, 6 August 1904, Page 6

PARTIAL PROHIBITIONISTS. The Fear of "Clause Nine."

THAT celebiated "clause nine (no license, no liquor) is no joke, whatever Mr A R. Atkinson may think To those who imagined that its provision would meet with the hcaitiest approval of the people who are sworn neither to "touch, taste nor handle" intoxicants, the bitter opposition of the prohibitionists is quite remarkable. No teetotaller worthy of the name w ould offer anybody any facility, private or public, for quenching an immoral tlm st, and no man with a bottle in the cupboard or a ke° in the cellar has a right to strike out the top line mcicly with the intention of ruining some unfoitunate licensee, and enrichino the brewer in the next county 01 the licensee over the boundary * *■ * If liquor is bad, it is unholy m the hotel 01 m the drawing-room It is as gieat a sin to dunk beer m the dmmg-ioom as over the bar counter The "mterfeience with the private rights of the citizen" cry of the nolicense people is a wee bit absurd They assert that the "selling" of liquor is what they wish to suppress Presumably, the "sly bottle" would not be bought ? The possession of liquor in a no-license district suggests that the possessor has been encouraging the trade outside the district. It means that the enemies of liquor are its best friends, and want to introduce it into the home m a wholesale manner At least, that is what appears to be the case The anti-liquor man should be a whole-souled teetotaller He should stick to his guns, and his creed should be "do not touch, taste, nor handle any intoxicant anywhere." The "moderate" party are the strongest supporters of the prohibitionists, and, of course, clause nine might cause them to ponder when they saw that by voting no-license their liquor would really be taken away. A man who "strikes out the top line," and prohibits his neighbour from getting the liquor he wants, might easily drink himself silly on his better salary m private, if the provision proposed is not given effect to*. * * * If the very unsatisfactory local option is to obtain, "clause nine" is absolutely necessary supposing that the prohibitionists really want to ultimately kill the drink traffic Partial prohibition doesn't loosen the grip of the brewer, and "no license, but lots of liquor" — the cry of the nohcense party — will just empty some of the Bung people's pockets a-nd fill the others * * * If it is sinful to drink at the bar, it is sinful to own a vineyard, and grow wine grapes. If it is an offence against morals to buy a nobbier, it is aam to make beer barrels If there is to be no-license in any locality m New Zealand, about three-parts of the patent-medicine vendors should be fined £30 for selling sly-grog, for it has been successfully proved recently that dozens of patent medicines — beloved by strikers-out of the top line — contain a much larger per centage of alcohol than the liquors sold in licensed houses. * * * Sweep it all out, or give everybody an equal chance. Don't ruin one alleged social sinner, and make a beer monarch of his next-door neighbour. Be consistent, and say ■ "Alcohol is the curse of this and every other country. I pledge myself to advocate its abolition everywhere and under every circumstance." The man who sticks to such a creed is a prohibitionist