DRINK AND THE WAR.

Southland Times, Issue 18843, 8 June 1920, Page 2

DRINK AND THE WAR.

To the Editor. Sir,- —Rarely do I “rush’ into print,” but a newspaper report of a recent Court case in Invercargill drives me to a protest in ink. While defending a man accused of theft one of the legal gentlemen pathetically described his client as a man with a weakness for drink. As the accused was a returned soldier of course the drink business was “probably acquired in the army.” Isn’t it time the legal fraternity picked up a new plea ? Although the war was a comparatively recent disturbance the “learned-to-drink-in-the-army” canard is already threadbare through over-use in our courts. Every time a returned man is presented to the bench for some misdemeanour the idiotic remark is dragged out, even though the accused may have been a “boozican,” and “hard case” generally, before the Kaiser’s troops led off. Of course a man of law tries to win cases, but he should hesitate before he insults New Zealand's soldiers—as he inferentially does when he makes that statement. Believe me, it did not need army associations to make men drinkers. (Looking back the fair-minded man will readily acknowledge that he met as many boozers before the war us he meets now). The rum ration we received in the trenches was a microscopic affair. If any men got too much they were usually the bashful fellows in back-area billets. The wines and beers of France —as cx-diggers know—are very light—in nowise comparable for “sting” with New Zealand drink. I hope, Sir, you find space for these remarks. Being a man slow of speech in argument I would like to keep a printed copy by me to read solemnly in a loud voice to mournful people of both sexes who tell m 5 with tears in their voices that “rum ruined the boys in the trenches.” —I am, etc., WM. KIWI.