CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 302, 31 May 1915, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

POLITICAL MATTERS, To the Editor. Sir, —In a leading article you make disparaging remark's about Mr. lAlien. our Defence Minister. Now, Sir, in my opinion ho is acting most wisely under trying circumstances, besides keeping strictly to the rules sent out by the Imperial Government. Anyway, can Dr. McXnb have a better grasp of military affairs than Mr. Allen? You say lie is a good officer and is needed at the front; then according to your own showing, Dr. MeXab should he there also. No doubt the Opposition Party should only he too k pleased to see the back of such a strong iVpponent disappear from Parliament. It.Sir .T. G. Ward and his few followers were working so hard to help the country at this time of stress, instead of just hunting for a little trumpery vote, we couhl appreciate it and give him credit for being a veal Imperialist. It may be to beg disaster for New Zealand for the Labor Party to have the power to stop the present enlisting when it is certain we will require twice the number of men. —I am, etc., COUNTRY FIRST. [■What is required now is not party politics, hut national politics.—Ed.] LICENSING REFORM. To the Editor. Sir, —The Daily News bus consistently and for years supported tho idea vf "disinterested management" for the liquor trade as a preventative of all its evils, rather than its total abolition. In this direction all the arguments of the leading article of Saturday pointed: Do not attempt to "root out" the evil, only moderate it. It opens up too large a question, and too many points, for one letter; is it possible to carry on any trade on disinterested principles? The ! experience of the Gothenburg system in the birthplace of this system shows that, so far, it has been impossible. Then, again, does the blame for certain evils (crime, lunacy, misery, etc..) rest on the drink, or on the '''conditions under which it is distributed," or even on "over-indulgence"? This query, as put in the leading article in question, almost answers itself. The only point worth considering is that of "over-indulgence." What is over-indulgence? It must be determined either on the quantity of liquor consumed, or on the ell'ect produced on the consumer. The former is manifestly an absurd measure of indulgence; the quantity for one man miy be quite wrong for another. If, however, the ell'ect produced by the drink be taken as a test the difficulty arises as to how much exhilaration (intoxication) is to be deemed over-indulgence. On the question of quantity, experimentalists differ. There was Austin's law which allowed Li- ounces of spirit, and then there was Abel's law, which was much lower. Others have tried to find out a safe quantity which will not be "over-indulgence," but without success. The safe dose lias been, and is, a vanishing quantity; it is a will-o'-the-wisp that vanishes just as you seem to ha\c come upon it. As a matter of fact, when the drinker has taken enough to produce any perceptible effect—to himself or to anyone observing him—he. has over-mdulged." he has taken too much, and has received injury. In discussiing this reform, it is of no avail to throw adjectives such its fanatical, violent, implacable. Let the advocate;; of intoxicating drinks show some good results jl'om the use that in the least compensate. for the harmful results, which 'ire so (latent to the world to-day; then Avill. be the time to talk about compromise. In the meantime all that wise men and women can say is that "the liquor evil must be rooted out." —I am, etc., X.