PROHIBITION DENOUNCED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 288, 3 December 1914, Page 8

PROHIBITION DENOUNCED.

BY MR PHILIP SNOWDEN, M.P. PROHIBITIONISTS ‘ ‘RECKLESS AND UNFOUNDED.” ‘‘ABSOLUTELY UNTRUSTWORTHY ADVOCATES.” In his book “Socialism and the Drink Question,” Mr Philip" Snowden reviews the progress of true temperance in English-speaking countries. In the course of tills review, he denounces prohibition, speaks up for freedom and liberty, advocates that provision should he made for the right of moderates to use alcoholic beverages, denounces prohibition and prohibitionists in no unmeasured terms, and concludes by arguing in favor of the municipalisation of the liquor industry ! 'l'he second book by Mr Philip Snowden, M.P., is very thorough, and no one who reads it will question the vehemence and intensity, the honesty and thoroughness of the author’s condemnation of local option and prohibition as temperance reforms. Mr Snowden confounds the Alliance (11. K.) with the fact that the liquor consumption per head of the population increased from £3 Gs 10d in 1886 to £3 16s 3d in 1906, and asiks the Alliance whnt-it means by claiming that temperance has made progress in the face of that outstanding fact—pages 34, 35. Coming to New Zealand, which most particularly interests us, Mr Snowden directs attention to the failure of prohibition and no-license. Mr Snowden says (page 131): — “We fail to find much encouragement to hope that local option will do much tn lessen the volume cf the drink trade.” Again (page 129), Mr Snowden says:— “Local option in New Zealand has apparently dons nothing whatever to lesson the amount of drink consumption.” Then Mr Snowden quotes Sir George Turner. ex-Premier of Victoria, on prohibition, thus:— "In his opinion there is no surer way of making the peopio take to liquor than to close all the hotels and make the traffic illegal.” Next Mr Snowden, with manifest 'approval, quotes the Bishop of Ballarat on prohibition, thus:— "It (Prohibition) lowered the moral tone of the community for it generated on a large scale bogus clubs and siy grop shops,” etc. i

| (Vide page 1,.’12.) The host is yet to come. Mr Snowden declares (page li7) : “The suppression of a license i will not destroy the drink appetite.” i And Mr W. K. Gladstone is quoted to | support Mr Snowden in his denunci-

ation of “suppression of licenses” as a temperance reform and so much landed hy prohibitionists in Xew Zealand :

Mr Gladstone; “If it pretends to the honor of a remedy it Is little better than an imposture.” Page 136.

Mr Snowdon has, like all original thinkers, ideas of his own. and his scheme of temperance reform is urged upon the acceptance of his readers for various reasons, chief of which is that provision must he made for the moderate user of alcoholic beverages:—

“The public must provide for the satisfaction cf the demand for liquor in moderation,’’ etc. (page 171).

Again (p. 174), Mr Snowden urges that their proposed reforms “must be moral in the sense that the proposed changes do not violate the popular sense of liberty and justice.” That is exactly what local option, i.e., local no-license and prohibition, aim at accomplishing, and so we have left the strongest instance of Mr Snowden’s denunciation of prohibitionists to the end. Here it is, vide p. Ill:

“The Rev. W. J. Dawson, in an article recently published, says : “Six great States, viz., Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia, Alabama, and Oklahoma, have enacted prohibition laws. In not one of these States is it possible to sell or procure alcoholic liquor.”

Now it is the invariable custom of prohibitionists to declare that “Prohibition does prohibt.” The Rev. Hammond. the Rev. John Dawson, the Rev. Hinton, the Rev. L. M. Isitt, the Rev. Comrie, et hoc genus omne, most solemnly avow that prohibition prohibits and that those who disagree or would question the dictum of the Rev. W. J. Dawson must be advocates of the liquor industry and in the pay of the liquor party. But what does Mr Snowden have to say about Mr Dawson’s statement, and Mr Snowden is under engagement to and in the service of the Prohibition party? Here is what he says about the Rev. Mr Dawson’s wild statement (vide page 114):

•“This extract is quoted as a typical specimen of the reckless and unfounded statements made by fanatical and emotional wouldbe temperance reformers. Such statements contribute nothing to the discussion of a great and difficult problem, but serve only to candemn as absolutely untrustworthy the advocates of this particular proposal.'

Tin’s particular proposal is “prohibition.” Therefore, when advocates of prohibition tell you thafc prohibition will prohibit, or that no-license is any improvement upon the existing system of licensing you can quote Mr Philip Snowden and say to these '“fanatical and emotional would-be temperance reformers” that their statements are “reckless and unfounded,” and their assertions to the contrary only serve to condemn them as “absolutely untrustworthy” advocates on this particular subject. When it comes to trouncing the reverend and unreverend urohibitionists, Mr Philip Snowden, M.P., of England, whins the prohibitionists with serpents and scourges them with scorpions—that is, in his book