SUNDAY READING.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1922, Page 9

SUNDAY READING.

DEMOCRACY AND THE DRINK j TRAFFIC. “IS THERE NOT A CAUSE?” zr> _ —Sam. XVII. 29. ' y Rex. A. H. Collins, New Plymouth. So spake the stripling David in answe to the hectoring speech of his big 'brag gard brother. David had no private ent to serve. His presence was not due t< pride or selfishness. He had put his lift to the hazard because he loved his lanr and sought its deliverance from a galling menace. it is true that, measured by hi; inches, David was a pigmy in presence o; a giant; but measured by his soul, the case was reversed, David was the giant and his accuser the pigmy, for as .saac Watts said, “I must be measurec by my soul.” But it is the vice of smal minds to attribute ill motives for noble deeds. They seem incapable of understanding men who champion great causes with no selfish end in view. If you want illustration, you will find it in the attitude of the liquor trade towards the advocates of the suppression of the traffic in strong drink. Obviously the temperance party has no private interests at stake. Obviously they are not the least reputable citizens of the State. Yet they are the objects of unmeasured abuse. I am not an expert in slang, and my dictionary does not enlighten as to the* meaning of the word “wowser.” It must be some fearsome and terrible creature, if I am to judge by the way it has got on the nerves ot the liquor party; but I want to suggest to them that ill names prove nothing; and this also, that to be abused by some people is a thinly-disguised compliment. Let the appeal be to facts and reason. It is a poor cause that needs to mark its br-e:, “No case, abuse the plaintiff.” ( I am a convinced prohibitionist, and I propose to enter the lists with the button of the rapier. But I am not here to abuse the publican or the brewer. Abuse is no argument. I am glad to admit that their ranks include respectable men and reputable citizens, good husbands and kind fathers. I am convinced that not a few who are engaged in “the trade” would be glad to wash their hands of it. But with the utmost charity and goodwill to individuals, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that in proportion as the trade in liquor flourishes humanity suffers, business is arrested, efficiency is lessened, homes are wrecked, crime grows, and the kingdom of God is hindered.

“HEADING FOR RUIN.” I do not ask anyone to accept my ipsi dixit for that. Our foremost politicians, our chief journalists, our most experienced judges and moralists, speak with united voice in declaring that the trade, which prospers and grows rich out of the intemperance of the people, has become an organised and embattled power for mischief i in the State, and that it is heading for ! physical degeneracy and moral ruin. Dr. Washington Gladden is one of the sanest democrats I know, and he says “The liquor interest has become one of the gigantic, consolidated, unsocial foes, directly and malignantly assailing the community, undermining its thrift, corrupting its political life, destroying its peace; and against it r not merely the teacher of science with his text-book, and the preacher with his Bible, but all of us, with all the power we possess, must rise and do battle.”

It is never an exhilarating task Io thrash a dead horse; and yet to argue that strong drink is not necessary to sound physical health and happiness is very much like that. The advocates of temperance have many allies. They do not all move on the highest moral levels, but they all agree in saying that liquor robs a man of physical stamina; of reserved power stored up for the emergency hour; of mental ability, and dependableness; in a word, of self-control and efficiency. The athletic trainer forbids it to the man who would do his best in upholding the honor of his club or college on the sports field. I don’t often go to the Drize ring for an illustration, but for once I will. The notorious Tom Sayers was once accosted in these terms.

“Well, Tom, I suppose when you are training you use plenty of beef steak and London porter!” The boxer replied: “In my time I have drunk more than was good for me, but when I have business on there’s nothing like cold water and dumb-bells.” When “Tom” retired from

“business” he took to drink and died a sot. Cold water and dumb-bells made him a Samson; alcohol laid him in a dishonored grave. Doctors are unanimous in saying that when a critical illness comes the man who is free of the taint of alcohol has by all odds the best chance of pulling through. The employer of common labor wants the man who does not drink, for he gets stronger and steadier men. swifter and more efficient work. Brain workers handling delicate and difficult problems agree that keen, clear thinking, quick, reliable action, steady fingers and nerves, are possible only with total abstenance from drink, and they chose their helpers accordingly. Railroad and other great corporations and contractors place a ban on drink. The statistics of insurance companies and friendly societies are conclusive that from the standpoint of efficiency and longevity, alcohol stands condemned. The hotelkeeper prefers a barman who does not drink. So that, leaving the moral question out of the calculation, the case against liquor is overwhelmingly strong, and those who would argue for the use of alcohol as a beverage are out of touch with the best scientific and medical opinion. They are cave men; they need to go to school.

QUESTION OF RIGHTS.

I will go farther. This address is concerned with democracy and the drink traffic, and I want to say that no sound democrat will deny the right of the people to settle this question. If alcohol had all the supposed virtues of “Holloway’s Ointment,” “Warner’s Safe Cure,” “Mother Seigel’s Syrup,” with “Pear’s Soap” asd “Coleman’s Mustard” thrown in, it would not touch the point at issue. It is not a question whether drink is good or bad. There is something deeper. There is the quest on of our citizens’ rights. We say the right is ours to deal with the liquor traffic, and any man or any body of men who seeks to deny or confuses that clear issue is a bastard democrat. But there are only three ways of dealing with “the trade.” First there is the granting of free trade in drink, and the publican and brewer would not argue for that. There is the regulation of the traffic, which has proved hopeless, for the trade flouts the law. Thirdly, there is the suppression of the traffic altogether. It is only by prohibiting the manufacture and sale that we can hope to deal with this thing effectively, and prohibition is within our clear right as a free democracy. There are other considerations, and I shall hope to deal with them later; for the moment I rest my plea on social and economic ground. Mind, I do not say that all the aud «i»es o£ the .coaMPUßity are due

to the liquor traffic and would depart with the advent of prohibition. There are foul lips that never touch the glass; there are hideous evils that flourish in temperance circles. But the evils due to drink are as patent as the evils due to smallpox, an-1 the question is whether these evils can be •restrained and finally stamped out. I believe they can, and I therefore plead that you will not sit idly by and leave the issue to chance, but take your place in the battle line, and for the sake of the wives and weans, for the sake of the Empire

and the church, do your part. ) ! r ) MEANING OF LIBERTY. j ; But I notice the plea of personal liberty ? is constantly urged. I do not wish to a be offensive to anybody, but some who j mouth the great word “liberty” have yet r to learn its elementary meaning. Liberty ’ does not meay the right to do as you like regardless of the rights of others. ? ! Liberty is conditioned by the interests of ' ! the community. All our restrictive legis- ' ■ lation is based on that fundamental prin- • ! ciple. It is not in the interest of public j safety that every erratic Jehu shall drive , j as fast as he likes, on which side of the road he pleases, and hence the laws regu- . * lating the street traffic. It is not in the interest of the public health that chemists sell as much poison, or that anybody and everybody shall be free to carry firearms, and so we have restrictive legislation. The Legislature has already recognised the need to restrict the sale of liquor for the sake of the people, and when total prohibition is carried it will only be an extension of the principle that requires the subordination of individual freedom to the greatest :l cf the greatest number. In a community of one, liberty means that one can do exactly as he chooses. Like Robinson. Crusoe, he might sing:— “I am the monarch of all I survey, My right there is none to dispute; I am the centre all round to the sea, I am lord of the fowl and the brute.” But when man Friday arrived on the scene that ceased. Friday had his rights, as i well as Crusoe, and as John Stuart Mill ; says, ,Crusoe’s rights ended where Friday’s ; rights began, for Cruso? shared the island • with his man. The essence of civilisation is I a recognition of the rights of others. The | progress of the English people for a thous- | and years has been along the road of the < limitation of individual liberty whenever : it would injure another or the community I i as a whole.

■ The trade pleads justice, and sq do I. ■ Justice to the multitude of women and i children whom drink has robbed of home ■ and food and love; justice to the State that has been robbed of many of its useful citizens; justice to the Christian Church, robbed of some of its gifted members and ministers. Oh, yes, we want justice done. When the criminal asks for justice we give it him behind prison bars, or if the offence be grave enough we give him justice at the end of a hempen rope. I say we want justice and freedom for all classes, and not one class : alone. Moreover, is there not another plea ? Are we aot, in a very real sense, the guardians of others? Are we not our brother’s keeper? Some are the victims of thoughtlessness; they follow the example of others rather than their own convictions. Some are influenced by wrong education and social custom. Some are passion swept; the alcoholic taint is in their blood, and once roused it runs lika liquid fire in their blood. Should we not have a care for these? We fence machinery to protect the worker against accident or death. We insist on sanitary conditions, we cleanse foul drains, we punish adulteration of foodstuffs, Nve pasß»Jaws to protect women and children; should we not step in between to save men from the ravages of the liquor trade? Should we not be willing to forego personal gratification for the sake of others? “Happy is the man who is not condemned in things which he alloweth.”