PROHIBITION

Taihape Daily Times, 8 April 1919, Page 5

PROHIBITION

ITS '.: TYRANNY UNREASON IIfJUST ICE INEFFICIENCY

The following letter of His Grace Archbishoj Redwood (Metropolitan) was read on Sunday in all the churches of the 'Archdiocese of Wellington:

Archbishop's House Wellington, March 25, 1919

Rev. Dear Father, — The clergy and people of this Archdiocese and of the other Dioceses in New Zealand naturally look to their Metropolitan for right guidance on the matter of prohibition —national prohibition —with which this Dominion is threatened. I hope such a calamity will never befall it. For what is the altogether untenable position of the prohibition "advocates? It is this: if they argue that wine (alcoholic drinks) is an evil in itself, then absolute prohibition, even for Sacramental purposes, should emphatically follow; but this argument transfers reprehensibility from the agent to the instrument, and so destroys morality; moreover, it is contrary to Scripture, and the emphatic teaching and example of Christ, who used wine Himself, and in instituting the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, made it part of the esential matter.

If they argue that wine, or alcoholic drink, is not an evil in itself, then regulation of its traffic is surely the moral course to adopt. But if prohibition is urged on account of the misuse which some make of it, then, to be morally consistent, the same people should demand that, because the sexual instinct is abused by some to the extreme of impurity, therefore all union of the sexes should be forbidden. On the same principle,

printing, the theatre, dancing, should be prohibited. All this would, of

course, be absurd, and is almost j wholly blasphemy against marriage, j which is a holy ordinance of God, and is honoured by all men. The position . of the prohibitionist is accordingly against logic and common sense. Reform is needed—not prohibition—reform wise and moderate and patient in the light of experience, education, and true morality; in the interests of the great body of the publie, and especially of moderate men who consttute the majority of the people. To brand jSTew Zealanders, who are generally a sober community as a drink-sodden people, demanding drastic legislation, is a vile and monstrous calmuny. The whole scheme iof national prohibition is a great step backward; it would be an odious and inquisitorial tyranny, foreign to the basic principle and spirit of British law. As the Archbishops, last October, aptly stated in their important pronouncement, "We view with misgiving an dalarm the crude proposals of those prohibitionists who demand drastic legislation -when would be an infringement on the reasonable liberty of the mass of j the people; which would most probi ably be inefficacious for the purpose j in view, and which, in the end, would | produce more evil than it would reI move." i | Prohibition is indeed fatal to j Liberty, because it involves a serious j outrage against the natural rights and | liberties of individuals, and contemptuously disregards the claims of dissenting minorities. It is also fatal to Temperance, though not a few sophistically confound temperance with prohibition. Temperance is a growth like all moral laws, in the individual and the community. Prohibition proposes to establish temperance according to the Criminal Code. Temperance is positive. an<i appeals to man's sense of self-control, to his reason and conscience. Prohibition is negative, and appeals to the sense of ; fear, to pains and penalties, and utterly ignores man's habits and education. Temperance is the development of man's righteousness and selfcontrol. Prohibition is the reduction of man to a position of compulsory : national total abstinence by the criminal law: Temperance is the heritage i ; and blessing of a free people. Prohibition is the yoke which a country constructs for itself when it confesses its inability to self-control, and from which it will take long years to free itself: Temperance is the badge of •self-respect, and orderliness. Prohibition is the symbol for hypocrisy and deception. All the secret encour-

these words occur:— *

(Extended Eeport-—Published by Arrangement with the Catholic Presbytery.)

age.nent to sly drinking, the lifter lac-;; of control, the absence of all authority, the vile decoctions served, are sure to generate a low moral atmosphere of great mischief. And sucli places of sly drinking greatly appeal to the young. Once let a young man become contaminated by the moral tone of the "sly grogs," he will be damaged morally, if fltot utterly ruined. Prohibition will undoubtedly generate lawlessness. Its extreme character, its far-reaching measures its enormous penalties, stamp it as a grinding despotism—the fruitful parent of disorder Prohibition is as despotic as any law of the worst despot. It utterly idisregard<s and' tramples under foot the undoubted rights of minorities, whom it grossly insults by the way it flaunts their' wishes and destroys their privileges. The minority under it would obeT, or suffer outrageous penalties. Whereever it prevails it is monstrous in every way and grossly insulting to the intelligence of the large minority. If it is carried in New Zealand we may expect that shortly the land will be schools of bypocrisy, evasion, lawlessness, and deception. One extreme begets another Prohibition would plunge us into a eourf 1 of folly, bringing turmoil into the politics of th i country, perjury and evasion into ihe courts, and deception into the people. Let it not be argued that "sly gvog" would become an iniposibiiu'? when throughout the whole Dominion there would be no liquor to bo procured. And what could prevent the manufncture of sly grog in the country and its introduction by a widespread system of smuggling? But in ai/ case this plea is no excuse for its inherent and rampant tyranny.

In a recent publication "regarded as authoritative by the JSTo-license Party,

"I recollect on one occasion, in conversation, one of the brewers said to a prohibitionist, 'I hate the drunkard as much as you/ The prohibitionist replied: 'That remark defines the difference between us. You hate the drunkard; I hate the drunkard-maker.' " It is this very externation in teaching which is sure to add to the list of the drunken. Nay, it destroys all morality. This teaching would render morality impossible. Anarchy and lawlessness would be rampant. "I hate the drunkardmaker. " In terms of logic, he hates the hotel-keeper who sells wine, the barman who serves it, the commercial traveller who represents wholesale houses which stock wine. A step further; he would hate the winegrower, the labourer in the vineyard, and the carter who carries the wine, and so on. In large drapery establishments certain persons practise shoplifting. Prohibitionist teaching would exonerate them and blame the drapers, "I hate not the thief, but the thief-maker.' 1 ' Such a doctrine would abolish the Ten Commandments. To shift the responsibility from the man who drinks to excess to other persons is to encourage sympathy with the drunken, and still more is this wrought iby absolutely stopping the supply, not only to the few lawless, but to the whole community. This remedy is fatal to morals. If is fatal to set up a compulsory and ascetic total abstinence soeiety for the people and to enforce its rules by a drastic criminal code. A true educational development undoubtedly means that the whole of man's attributes are~to be brought into true harmony. Here lies the worth of the individual and the true greatness of the State. A mere negation such as prohibition would never accomplish this; in fact, S greater violation of its principles can hardly be conceived.

This National Prohibition -raze is mainly the work of a handful of fanatics, while some honest people, evea some Catholics, owing to what they have suqffcred from drunken fathers or mothers, husbands or wives, relatives or friends, put sentiment beforJ reason and yield to the temptation of resorting to a remedy worse than disease. But let Catholics and Vail good Christians be iiaj-jjo- warned We know that there are in the rani of the prohibitionists, thouggh not, perhaps, amongst the ores2:t'; leaders in this country, hotter enemies of

the Catholic Church and of the Mass. . There is a real danger that these J people would later on try here, as j they have done in at least one im- j portant State of America, to render the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass impossible. Listen to what one of their leaders in the United s'tates has said Sidney Catt, Governor of the State of Florida, at the annual convention of the Anti-Saloon League, held in Washington as recently as December, 1917, made the following declaration: "Liquor may not be imported into the State of Florida (after get through with the prohibition measure and after the Bill has been passed by the people) for any purpose -whatsoever, and the man who needs liquor for his religion had better prepare to take his religion out of Florida." But I. shall be told that we run no such danger in New Zealand, as we have the assurance of the leaders of the No-License League, together with \ the Government, that satisfactory regulations wil be made to allow wine to be procured for Sacramental purposes. lam not at all convinced that these regulations will be satisfactory. I First, of all, what are they? Nobobdy has seen them, and they arc not to be made, I understand, until after the poll is taken. Is it reasonable to ask Catholics to vote for National Prohibition on the strength of regulations not yet made, and about which we know nothing—whether they will n"e satisfactory or otherwise? But. even though the present prohibition leaders and the present Government may be perfectly sincere in their avowed purpose to make regulations that will be entirely satisfacj tory, what guarantee have we that in a few years, once national prohibition is the law of the land, other prohibition leaders and another Government—on the ground, say, that t'&e | exemptions are being abused —may ! not insert an amendment in the Act j doing away with all exemptions, cveu j for the Mass, or recasting the regulations in such fashion a to practically prevent the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice? We have had too much I experience of recent "rush" legisla--1 tion on the part of our Parliament not to fear similar "rush" legislation I in regard to Sacramental wine especially, I repeat, as the No-License I movement numbers amongst its most prominent advocates men who pubi licly denounce the Mass as "an unchristian supertition, " and make no I secret of their determination if they | had the power, to prevent its cel&brai tion in New Zealand.

I consider, therefore, thai: I would be failing in my duty did T not warn our people of the dangerous possibilities that are before them. Is the gfea't Catholic Church, in this pretended free land, to depend for the exercise of a natural and divine right on any fallible, and fallacious Government or set of politicians? Such a thing is an insult, an outrage, and an indignity. It implies a prying and inquisitorial interference in the Dominion I call, therefore, on all Catholics in the Dominion to vote dead against national prohibition, as they value common sense, liberty, and the sacred claims of their Holy Faith. Let them band with the best men in the Dominion, the mapority. of good and moderate men, to stamp out this noxious thing, national prohibition for ever. Let such inquisitorial and grinding tyranny never curse this free land. The Catholic who votes for national prohibition in the present condition" of this Dominion—whatever other exceptional case might bo conceived in other countries to make prohibition tolerable —is true neither to his common sense nor his love of freedom, nor his loyalty to his holy religion. Let him cast bis vote patriotically and religiously against it, in this and evary other election. Let him not become the slave of a false system inspired by narrow-mindedness and fanaticism. I remain, Rev. Dear Father. Yours Sincerely in Christ. X. FRANCIS REDWOOD, S.M. Archbishop of Wellington and Metropolitan.

N.B. —This letter was read to. the people on Sunday, April 6th, from the altar in all the various churches throughout the Archdiocese.