ETHICS OF PROHIBITION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 70, 19 April 1909, Page 4

ETHICS OF PROHIBITION.

Will. ROS.SITEE.

To Uk> Editor, Sii. T havi- to thank .Mr, Maunder tor tlu« unusually courteous. tone his letter on tln.» above subject. Jf onlv the advocates of !,,s partv eould bo induced to write and speak as gentlemen, avoiding personalities and abuse, it would 1* something considerable gained in the way of love and goodwill, With much in the first part of hits letter one is able to agree. Xo one can dc'iij that man is bound in dutv to himself, his. family, his country and hi* Oed lo so use his body in the mann/r of drixik. as well as in other mallet*, that, his host powers of bodv, mind and conscience may be developed and maintained.'' And it is also true thai "thai is why teetotallers are.wli.it they are,"' or at least many of theiu. Sucii men as '}: K (tough. Jor instance, who could not drink in moderation, have found that abstinence was absolutelv necessary for them. Of that sort 'of man. usually a very .good sort ; we have ail of ns known examples. Cod forbid that I should do other than encourage thOie weaker brethren—weak in thi«i way, but probably strong otherwise—thus to resist an. easily besetting sin| Others, again, are doubtless abstainers because they believe their example will be beneficial to certain persons, a tvpe of sell-denial that is worthy of all "respect. Some others have arrived at the opinion held bv Mr. Maunder himself, that because of the evils of intemperance il is their duly to abstain and that they would be doing wrong if lliev did not. In their case the duty is obvious, "for he that doubtcth in damned if he eat, because he eatetu not of faith; for •whatsoever is not of faith is sin." This being so, Mr. Maunder tells us "the teetotaller has found a good tiling,' he ' knows it. and he invites all and sundry | to join with him." And lie asks "What is wrong with the ethics of all this?" I reply, holding the views he doe*, he is quite right in inviting th.- adhesioa of others to his opinion and practice. But let it be by invitation only that he endeavors to propagate his views, not by ■ compulsion and the invention of a new I criminal code; by deprivation of their property and liberty of those who are not < f his way of thinking. In his next/ sKiHen.ce .Mr. Maunder take* entirely dill'erent ground, when he asserts dogmatically that "it is the duty of Christian jM'Ople, .as well as Jews. Agnotics and Theosophists to abstain from the use of intoxicants and for the reasons given above." Oue is obliged to contradict this assertion absolutely. Leaving the three latter classes to ?,peak for themselves, I aflirm that it is not the duty, and for the. past nineteen centuries has not been the duly of Christians to he teetotallers Nothing can be a Christian dutv that is not laid down in the Scriptures and has not been taught by thy Church; and as both, teach quite other doctrines. Mr. Mauntier's judgment, even when coupled to l that of all his party, can be in no way) binding—other than in the exceptional '» ca>e.- already mentioned. We deny tin. 1 statement, generally r>p»\iking. that • "the use of alcoholic drink is not conducive to our be*t interests a«* men and as citizens.' We have learnt the very* opposite Of this all down tile ages, and the individual experience of million?* now living is to the same effect. Lik«all other of Cod's gift s \Kd in moderation. they are both useful and pleasa-nt., :It is fair to ask. who ha* madv Mr« i Maunder.. or any of his party, jrolgel over us? of their sincerity ami selfdenial we make no question. These i ! qualities were never more cons"pieuon< S than among tho*e who lit the tires of I Smithfield and invented the tortures '• of the Inquisition, as well a> among the early Mahomedans Nav. mure, if the • methyls of the prohibitionUls are right, we cannot lind fault with the*e ' earlier exhibiting of sincerity. If ma-.' jorities obtained by half truths and misrepresentations, like those laid down a* axioms by .Mr. Maunder, are right iw < oereing minorities now. why were I hey wrong in the Middle Ages? It seem;euriuiir! to u-e the >ad ca-e of an isrv- , fortunate man suffering from an hemlii;tarv malady, almost the worst t'listtl artVict. humanity, as an argument furf j depriving of their natural rights s<M' j, people who form I he bulk of Cue .sfurcies: fl but that and the tirade against tritoxi- | cants clo:-iit«; the letU'V uader review is 5 of the usual tort of inilalcrß rhetoric I' with w'iiiHi prohibitionists have made (j, u* familiar of late years aird requires no P particular notiee. The whole: waiter of [j nting and drinking has bevn left tofj, the private judgment oJ:' the individual, with one proviso-that whether \v<« eat if ami drink this or that, or abstain, we It are to give <lod thanks. rule which. ® were, it more universally observed, to-zji gether with that other-to judge only jt ourselves and not our neighbor—would Jf conduce, to temperance of life more eU'e.- I( tually than ;i'l the teetotal ovgitnisa- J. lions, while love and goodwill would JJ far more obtain among us. Nor do l!j----think what 11i<* peru.-jil of any amount * of literature—which cartel not. compare in -weight and authority J witli that on the sid:> of moderation* / and tenqrerance —would convince wi that those drinks which ,i long <evi>* flff years of personal experience—witi't; occasional eNperiv ices of their life-s;»vuiu: • efleet—has proved to be o: the- rrtratjsl • value. are pernicious and poisonous.—(j am, etc., 15. KNWIU