THE PROHIBITION CRUSADE.

Southern Cross, Volume 1, Issue 13, 24 June 1893, Page 9

THE PROHIBITION CRUSADE.

The Rev. L. M. Isitt, who is travelling through the colony in the interests of Prohibition, opened the campaign on the evening of Sunday, 18th inst., in the Theatre Royal. Beginning with an exposition of the relation of the church to the liquor traffic, he followed on Mondays Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday evenings with addresses on “Drink, thou art the vilest fiend of all,” “ The Regulation of the Liquor Traffic,” “Compensation,” and “ Prohibibition.” Mr Isitt, who is admittedly one of the most powerful platform speakers in the colony, declared in the course of one of his speeches that there were some things in this world that people would never dream of trying to regulate—a noxious reptile, for. instance. Such things must be destroyed, and so with the liquor traffic, which had wrought terrible havoc, and would continue to do so until it was abolished. Mr Isitt on several occasions referred to the absence from the meetings of people of the “ right colour ” —“ red noses,” he called them—and recognised that his hearers were mainly composed of people who agreed with his views. He several times challenged the opponents of Prohibition to combat his statements, and some excitement was caused by the announcement that a leading citizen had decided to take the platform. This, however, proved a false alarm, and the speaker had it all his own way from first to last. As to the claims of publicans to compensation in the event of the hotels being closed, he argued that they were neither legally nor morally entitled to anything of the kind. Thursday night was specially devoted to Prohibition, and the interest taken in the question was evinced by the fact that the lower part of the building was crowded, while the circle also had a good many occupants, including the members of the Murihiku Tent, T.0.R., who had previously marched through the town in regalia, headed by' the Garrison Band, whose services were acknowledged, at the instance of Mr J. S. Baxter, by three cheers at the close of the march. Mr W. Todd, who occupied the chair, expressed himself in favor of temperance and moderation, and pointed out that it did not necessarily follow that a chairma nof a meeting must be in full accord with all the sentiments of the speaker who was to follow. He admired that gentleman’s courage —he held certain opinions, and was not afraid to express them. Mr Isitt, after some introductory ramarks, said that he believed in the abolition of'the drink traffic because its continuance meant the destruction of hundreds and thousands and millions of men, women and children made in the image of the living God. He believed in Prohibition because he regarded the liquor traffic as the dirtiest, the most contemptible, and the most diabolical on the face of God’s earth. He denounced the lukewarmness on the question of many professing Christians who sacrificed their convictions to expediency and went on to inquire what return a community received from the liquor trade. People employed in other trades could show good and tangible results for the money they received. During the last ten years, taking the population of Invercargill at 10,000, the publicans here had received L 200,000, aud what could they show for it? It was claimed on behalf of the trade that it contributed L 500,000 a year to the revenue in taxes, but in doing so they took L 2,000,000 a year from the people, to say nothing of what the trade cost the country in increased gaol, hospital, lunatic asylum, and charitable aid charges. Eighty out of every hundred of the men and women sent to the Wellington gaol went there through drink, while thousands of children were brought into the world crippled and maimed for life through the sins of their parents, out of many of whom everything God-like and divine had been smitten by drink. Some people admitted the evils of the traffic, but doubted the efficacy of Prohibition. The fact that the brewers did not want it was a strong argument in its favour. Even now in Great Britain they had no fewer than 1500 centres in which partial prohibition obtained, and in one case the poor rate had fallen from Bs and 2s 6d to between Is and lOd. The speaker next dealt with Prohibition in the U.S., and quoted statements by judges and others as to the success of the system where the law was efficiently enforced —its effect in diminishing crime and promoting prosperity. It was objected in some quarters that prohibition interfered with the freedom of the subject, but this, especially from the lips of Liberals, was a cant phrase indeed. Why, they might as well say that the borough bye-laws interfered with personal liberty because they would not allow a man to build a house of wood in a certain area or to fill a store with inflammable material. A man should not be allowed to do that which was hurtful to his fellows. All the Prohibitionists now asked was power for the people’ to go, once in every three or* five years, to.the ballot-box and say whether they want licensed houses or not.

At the close of the address, Mr J. Hain, who expressed the opinion that there was a large majority in Invercargill in favour of the direct veto, moved—That this meeting, recognising that the people have the right to control the liquor traffic and to decide whether or not they shall have licensed houses in their midst, pledges itself to support the principle of the direct veto.”

Mr T. Buxton seconded the motion, and said he did so with all his heart and soul. He was not a recent convert—he had been a temperance man for forty years, and had never missed a chance of hitting the liquor traffic; indeed he understood he had made himself

almost a nuisance to the newspaper people. He had gone for writers on the other side, from a bishop downwards, and, as they knew, he had never come off second best. (Laugh-' ter and applause). This was not due to any greatness of his own, but was due to the fact that the position lie upheld was unimpeachable. In view of the results of the Sydenham appeal cases temperance , people wore now practically disfranchised, and he appealed to all right-thinking men to see that they were given fair play.

The chairman called for a show of hands in favour of the motion. (A voice Put up your own.” Laughter.) The chairman did so, and so apparently did every one present. J here were none on the other side, and the motion was declared to have been carried unanimously.