"LIBERTY."

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 113, 2 November 1911, Page 8

"LIBERTY."

PROFESSOR MILLS' LECTURE. 1 Professor Mills delivered his address on "Liberty" last night to a big audience in the Good Templar Hall. The speaker is a man of wonderful resource, a master of the art of public speaking, quite a facial contortionist, a man with a keen sense of humor largely developed, a man primed to the nozzle with the facts which form his ammunition in his present campaign, and a man well versed in matters economic. Mr. Fitzpatriclc presided. Professor Mills' address was rich in rhetoric. It was argumentative, and lengthy, so that only some of his "points" can be reported. He com-| menced by asserting that if the presence, of the drug alcohol were a new thing, or the consequences «f its use a new thing, it 'would take only a few hours to prevent its sale in New Zealand. But it hail come down to us through the centuries, and had made many associations before its real nature was discovered. To-day it hiul grown into the world's | life, and in trying to remove it they were attempting to displace "an old ■ friend," which they had to prove was! not a friend at all but an enemy. It was urged by the Trade party that prohibition advocates were invading the domain of personal rights. One of the rights, they said, which hail not been surrendered was the right of a man to drink what he liked, buy what he drank, and for another to sell him his drink. That doctrine of right was false and untrue, and if there ever were such a right it was time it was surrendered. If they ! were going to study a man's natural rights they must study him in his' natural surroundings. All human rights! grew out of natural, necessary, normal,! unavoidable human relationships. There' was no such right without its correspond-. ing duty, and whoever neglected or re-1 fused to do his duty thereby forfeited his rights. There was no right in life so sacred as life itself. It was written large right through the ages, "Thou shalt not kill." Nowhere was it written "Thou shalt submit to being killed.". And a man who killed forfeited his right to life. The man clamoring about his rights and neglecting his duty was a fraud and worthy of the contempt of decent people. A thing, he went on, had no rights, so alcohol as a drug had no rights. It had been held for a long time, on account of the limitation of the information of that time, that alcohol was an important, matter of diet. It had been proved now that alcohol never was and n<!ver would be of value as food. It never became part of the bone or muscle or nerve or the brain. It never' became a living, thinking, human be-' ing, and never had any part in the living structure of the man; therefore it was not a food, and when it was on its way to the brain it was there as an outsider, a foreigner, and a mischief maker. When the food theory had to be abandoned it was claimed that alcohol was a stimulant, on the assumption, he supposed, that alcohol operating as a stimulant would enable us to reach out into the future and appropriate for to-day the vitality that belongs to to-morrow or the next day! Alcohol did not even temporarily give a clearer eye, a steadier hand, or a stronger grip. Experiments by great scientists had proved that men with a ration of alcohol struck lefts directly, less regularly, and less strongly than when they had flrs-t struck without that ration of alcohol. And it was worth recording that each man felt that with the alcohol he was striking more directly, more regularly, and more strongly. A test with linotype operators gave similar results in every way. Alcohol was not a food, not a stimulant. It was an anaesthetic, which paralysed the nerves, makes a man partially unconscious, and in time altogether unconscious. An anaesthetic was a good thing to have if one were going to have a surgical operation performed upon one's body, but it was not a good thing if they wanted the body to perform. (Applause.) Tt deadened the sensibilities, and if persisted in stupefied the nerves. It was not a medicine. Alcohol when it got into the system had ino share in helping the digestion to transform food into blood. It made direct war on the brain, and thus it hadn't airy business in the body. said that a man could drink or let it alone as he liked—that was his business. But it was't. It affected the brain, and no one here had so much brain that the community could afford to lose any of their brains or intelligence. ! The use of alcohol concerned not only the man, but the woman who had given her most sacred interests to his keeping, and she had a right to be heard. AI-' cohol not only attacked the best in a : man, but it attacked and mastered the best and the most highly endowed men- 1 "Don't ever boast again that alcohol doesn t hurt you," warned the professor, who said alcohol wouldn't hurt a hitch-' ing post, or a fencing post, or a wooden 1 Indian. And the man who was most wooden-headed would feel it least. Seventy per cent, of the naturally born idiots and feebleminded were known to have been brought into being by a father or a mother or both when under the influence of intoxicating drink. No man' or woman had the right to damn the! whole community, weaken, poison, andj destroy the lifeblood and intelligence of' generations. (Applause.) I Whatever business came into the world' to make it worse was worse for the world, and it was better for the world to get it out. Alcohol had no rights, or conscience, intelligence, and no responsibility. It was a thing that the people had a moral responsibility to protect themselves against the misuse of this tiling, which stood in the market to 10b legitimate business, create crime and pauperism, and use up the purchasing power of the people. He urged the wo° men that no other problem concerned the attention of women so much as this. And the only way to get a decent hearing for the cause of labor was to put the grog-shop out of business. ! At the conclusion of the address, qnes-j tions were asked and answered. Professor Mills couldn't see that publicans were entitled to compensation, because; they were free to throw up their business when they liked and were not likely to compensate the public if (],ny lett. As for the barij majority, ho thought that no man should go to Parliament who wasn't prepared to settle

the licensing question on a bare majority. In no other part of the world was organised minority government organised and bragged about as in Xcvv Zealand with its three-fifths majority.