PROHIBITION.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 November 1922, Page 7

PROHIBITION.

THE MODERATE LEAGUE VIEWPOINT.

ADDRESS BY REV. HEATHCOTE. The views of the Moderate League on the licensing issue and prohibition in America were explained by the Rev. Wyndham Heathcote, B.A. (minister of the Unitarian Church, Wellington) before a crowded audience at the Empire Theatre, New Plymouth, last night. The chair was occupied by the Mayor (Mr. F. lE. Wilson), who briefly introduced the speaker. Mr. Heathcote spoke for nearly two hours, and his remarks were frequently applauded, although there were occasional dissentient voices. At the conclusion of the address he answered a number of questions submitted in writing, the meeting closing with votes of thanks by acclamation to him for his address and to the May nr for presiding. The Rev. Heathcote said that he had travelled much round the world—lndia, Africa, America and elsewhere—and what had impressed him most as regards New Zealand was its beauty and splendor. It was a pity the country was not better advertised in the Old World and in America. Few people in America could locate New Zealand on the. map, and many thought it was in some way connected with Australia. He had also been impressed with the enthusiasm shown at all his meetings in New Zealand, in both islands. He had what might be called an uproarious meeting in Auckland. It was a great meeting, and he would not forget it in a hurry. No matter whether he had spoken in wet or dry districts his audiences had been enthusiastic and attentive. The most enthusiastic meeting was held in Ashburton, which seemed to show that Ashburton was going wet again.

SOBRIETY OF NEW ZEALAND. “Pussyfoot” said he found the country wetter as one went south, but he (Mr. Heathcote) had never -found New Zealand wet in any place and only humid in any place. He had been struck with the sobriety of the people of New Zealand. It was an extraordinary sobriety. Therefore he thought it wrong that there should be introduced to the country the noxious weed of Prohibition. The garden of New Zealand was beautiful and fair, and any defects it might have could be remedied in time. It would be criminal for the prickly pear of Prohibition to be planted in New Zealand’s fair garden. But he did not think there was the slightest chance of it being done. After his tour through New Zealand he was convinced that, as in Great Britain, the Prohibition movement was dead as the dodo. When the campaign began, the Goliath of Prohibition came to New Zealand, fully armed, and declared that he would break or bend the will of New Zealand people to accept his view of things; but now that Goliath lay prostrate on the ground. A -few pebbles from the brook of eternal Truth had sufficed to bring about that result; and nobody had done more to achieve the result than Pussyfoot and the other American missioners. During the war certain guns made in America were tampered with by German workmen and in the field they exploded and injured the Allied gunners. In the same manner the great gun had exploded in the ranks of the Prohibitionists and caused disappointment and dismay. “DESTROYING ITSELF.” Prohibition had gradually been destroying itself, not only in New Zealand, but throughout the world, because it was becoming tyrannical; and all tyrannies, whether of king, obligarchy, or democracy, carried within themselves the seeds of their own destruction. Those who dared to raise their voices against it were at once called all manner of names, the worst motives were imputed to them, and they were slandered right and left. Every device was tried to silence them. For instance, when, in his church in Wellington, he delivered an address expressing his views on Prohibition, he was attacked in the most vile manner. It wa<s said that 'he had been paid by the Trade to say what he had, and everything was attempted to discredit him. Every Britisher had a right to express his opinion on any subject, and he had simply expressed his own opinion on Prohibition. The method .of trying to silence opposition and criticism was not a fair one. It was not British.

AFRAID OF THE EXTREMISTS. Throughout this country he had found that business men were actually afraid to become members of the Moderate League because they were afraid that they would lose business. He knew men in the country who had lost their jobs because they were anti-Pro-hibition. That was utter tyranny and in such a movement there should not be tyrannv. The movement seemed to have got on to a low plane of morality. The old Temperance movement in ' England, with which he had been connected when a young man, was inspired by the highest motives. The Temper - 1 ance movement aimed at improving the lot of people, and it had done a great amount of good. But now, somehow, the Temperance movement seemed to be auided by baser motives, such as love of sain and love of power and domination. Covetous eyes had been cast on the revenue of the liquor trade and the idea had been formed in many quarters: “Why should not this revenue be diverted in our direction?” The movement which had begun for the good of •the people had now been grasped by lower motives. He had no word to say against temperance or against total abstinence, but he had many words to say against Prohibition and the movement for the coercion of men and women. The Prohibition movement was dying through its internal diseases.

OFF THE LEASH. Pussyfoot describes the speaker as a parson off the leash. It was an unfortunate allusion, as it suggested that the Revs. Hammond and Dawson and the others were on the leash. Truly he (the speaker) was off the leash. He had full liberty to express hie own opinion. He was not -tied in any manner to any movement. The fiercest dog, if it was tied up, was impotent against burglars; and he was a dog loose in the backyard and fullv able to deal with the American burglar, Prohibition. Pussyfoot said he (Mr. Heathcote) could heat the Americans at lying. He would need to be a good one to do that. He actually was a poor artis- that direction. If

Sie was in a six furlongs race for the Lying Stakes Pussyfoot and' his friends would be home and dry before he was in the straight.

USE OF FIGURES. He had quoted a great mass of figures and facts and it was possible that now and again he had been led astray. Everybody knew how even newspapers erred and one might fall into error through quoting them. He had said there were 50,000 illicit stills in the state of Ohio. Pussyfoot said it was an infernal lie. The source quoted from purported to be a Prohibitionist source, and he. (the speaker) thought he was safe in quoting from it; but he had learned a lesson and would never again quote from a Prohibitionist source. The fact remained that in Ohio there were many illicit stills; and his own idea was that the statement was not an infernal lie, but that an infernal cat had got out of the infernal bag and the Prohibitionists could not catch the infernal thing. Truly he was no rival of Pussyfoot in the art named.

A REFERENDUM IN THE STATES. Pussyfoot told one audience that the Literary Digest referendum had shown a majority in favor of some form of Prohibition of 500,000. The referendum was taken ajnong ten million people, and returns had been received from one million. People were asked to vote for (1) Prohibition as it was, (2) amendment to allow of the sale of beer and wine or (3) the return of the saloons. A total of 356,000 voted for (1), 376,000 for (2), and 189,000 for (3), which gave a majority against Prohibition of 210,000. He (the speaker) had never done anything like that. Pussyfoot demurred at the speaker's statement that drunkenness was increasing in America and said he had a list of 40 or 50 cities whose drunkenness returns showed the decrease of drunkenness. He asked for the figures for some city to be demanded. Somebody asked for the figures for Birmingham, but Pussyfoot said he had not got them. He (the speaker) had them, and it would have been just as easy for Pussyfoot to. get them. And those figures showed a very decided increase. Pussyfoot told of Birmingham building a gaol and having no prisoners for it after the coming of Prohibition; but in Glen Innes, Australia, a wet place, they had built a gaol and could get no prisoners for it. The coming or Prohibition was not the only thing that made for lack of prisoners. Pussyfoot said the speaker was drawing on his imagination when he spoke of the addiction to drugs in America since Prohibition, but the next day came news from America that a commission of leading men had found the country addicted to drugs to such an extent that President Harding recommended an international commission on the question.

OPIUM IN THE STATES. Mr. Heathcote said there waa no Prohibition in London and not the same addiction to drugs. The Health Commisi sioner of New York had said America received fifteen times more opium per : head than any other country. On the I whole, Pussyfoot proved that he was 1 not as precise as he should be—in fact he was the limit in misrepresentation. The visit of the American missioners had proved that Prohibition does not prohibit. That was a great admission to make, because the only excuse for Prohibition (it could have no justification) would be its success in prohibiting. As Prohibition did not prohibit, there could be no excuse for New Zealanders accepting it. It would be criminal folly to except a thing, wrong in principle, which had proved a failure. Great Britain had rejected Prohibition. Throughout the British Isles it was regarded with the greatest disfavor. The various countries composing the United Kingdom did not agree on very much, but they were unanimous in rejecting Prohibition. (Applause.)

POSITION IN CANADA. New Zealand was being asked to adopt a principle rejected by the Mother Country, and was being asked by missioners from a more drunken and drug addicted country, with much more crime than New Zealand. The case of Canada was different. The country was continguous to America and had become Americanised in many ways. But Canada was retracing its steps, province after province returning to wet conditions. British Columbia and Quebec had tried Prohibition and then discarded it. The Premier of Quebec had explained why his province had adopted a system which the speaker thought would be adopted throughout the British Empire. Canada had found by experience the disastrous nature of Prohibition. Prohibition had never been supported by British statesmen. It was the same with the country’s writers and thinkers. Prohibition did not emanate from statesmen, philosophers or thinkers, but from cranks and faddists, and God help the country coming under the rule of cranks and faddists. He did not think New Zealand would allow itself to be dragged ignominiously behind the chariot wheels of this American craze.

WHERE PROHIBITION WAS REJECTED. Iceland and Russia had tried and rejected Prohibition. Sweden recently refused to adopt it. A surprising thing was that the women of Sweden had voted against Prohibition. The total majority against Prohibition was 29,000. and the women’s majority was 59,000. Had it not been for the women’s vote, Prohibition would have been carried. In the Literary Digest poll the women voted as follows: For Prohibition 38,000, for beer and wine 32,000, and for saloons 17,000. He objected to Prohibition because it was revolutionary, whereas all good movements should be evolutionary. The function of democracy should be to widen the liberty of the individual, hut Prohibition restricted individual liberty. There should be no limit to liberty, so long as another’s liberty was not infringed. It was said the majority should rule, but there were things in which the individual had the supreme control and the majority had no voice at all. Only in a matter affecting the whole people had the majority the right to rule. For instance, no majority and no Government had the right to interfere with the manner in which an individual worshipped God Almighty. No majority or Government had the right to interfere in the matter of his choice of wife. The individual was alone responsible for his eating or drinking. EXAMPLES QUOTED. Coercion, said Mr. Heathcote, was the ancient style, but now we said the man, the individual, must choose for himself and no majority must interfere.

Prohibition was destructive in principle. According to Christian principles not any thing was “damned stuff.” Christianity said they should not drink to excess, but it was opposed to coercion in anything. There was one nation which said “Thou shalt not drink.” He was the Turk, the Mohammedan, the unspeakable person, whom Gladstone truly said should be turned out of Europe. The Divine Master was not a total abstainer, and set the world the greatest example in this as in all other matters. Prohibition was the bankruptcy of Protestant religion, because they attempted to do iby Act of Parliament something they could not do by the grace of God. The attempt to coerce was no advance to the goal of sobriety and. morality.

OPPOSED TQ MODERN RESEARCH,

Scientifically, the method of Prohibition was opposed to all modern research. There was the right to pull from all sides, but if the State was committed to Prohibition, a certain pull was eliminated, and must lead to disaster according to the laws of nature. Those laws must be obeyed. That was wellknown in such a simple subject as electricity, which could be made to assist in so many ways, but to trifle with it meant only disaster. That was why the statesmen and philosophers of the world never stood for Prohibition. No one could dam the running stream. In America, although the booze was not flowing in the old channels, it was to be found in places hitherto unsuspected. Women in the States had entered their protest in nd uncertain manner. Taking up a cigar (to all appearances) the speaker showed how the little “spot” was to be had. Smilingly he dealt with a child’s toy and a book “Spring Poems,” and showed the receptacles for drink. People could go to the chemists or grocers and obtain liquor, more poisonous and vile than anything ever to be bought under license.

A CHANGED OPINION. With some people it was a great argument to state that all crime was due to drink, and that if only drink could be removed crime would be decreased. He had really believed that at one time, but his opinion had been changed through experience. Drink did not stand ‘in the connection of crime and lunacy as cause and effect. Men did not become lunatics through drink, but became drunkards through being mentally unstable. The majority of people were mentally unstable, although they did not get drunk or commit crime, and never did anything out of the way, but went to their graves without any great affair in their lives. Mental instability expressed itself in religious beliefs, in extreme Prohibition views, or in other remarkable ways. He admitted he would just as soon take no drink as go their ways. The most sober nations on the earth were being asked by a drug-addicted nation to accept the evils brought about largely by their own mistake.

Mr. Heathcote quoted American authorities deprecating Prohibition from the point of view of drug-addiction, crime-wave, and immoral license. In Chicago the police force had to be increased by 1000 since the advent of Prohibition, and the number of judges had been increased.

Mr. Heathcote spoke of the folly o? giving Prohibition a trial on the ground that it was a panacea for all evils. They should also remember that if Pro. hibition was carried that referendum would be the last. (Cries of No!) The speaker reiterated that that was* the ease, and a gentleman in the audience asked if he would debate the point. Mr. Heathcote declined, adding that before another referendum could he held an Act of Parliament would have to be passed. Prohibition was unchristian revolution-

ary, vindictive, coercive, and retarded progress, changing the national character. And when the Trade became an illicit one, the people’s character would change, and they would become a nation of hyprocrites. He was a firm believer in moral suasion on this subject. As President Woodrow Wilson (U.S.A.) said, they should rely on the creation of public opinion. By those principles they could still go forward. QUEBEC PRINCIPLE FAVORED. He advocated the principle adopted in Quebec, which, it was claimed, had reduced drunkenness in a year by 75 per cent., and almost to have exterminated the boot-legging industry which had grown up. The most favorable Press reports were made concerning the system. Beer and wines were allowed to be sold in hotels and restaurants, but spirits and whisky were under Government control. A bottle could be bought and taken home, but they could not sit at the shop and drink the whisky. The risk of drunkenness was diminished. He wished New Zealand had led the way in liquor reform, as the Dominion had earned a reputation for humanitarian legislation in many directions in the past, but there was still the chance of doing so. Whatever the remedy, Prohibition was not the way out. He did not come to them as one who had any interest in the liquor traffic. He spoke as a Britisher to Britishers. Great Britain was never a Prohibition country, and he reminded the audience of her victories on land and sea which had made the name of England one to be conjured with. Britain bore the heat and burden of the day in the Great War, while America was making dollars for the greater part of the time, and she was not a Prohibitionist. If America had adopted Prohibition, why should their citizens come to this country and attempt to force it down their throats. He was impressed with the height of such impertinence and hypocrasy.—(Applause.)

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS. Answering questions, Mr. Heathcote said: The first question he would ask concerning his daughter’s proposed marriage vtfould bo whether the young couple loved each other, not whether the young man drank or not. If it came’ to that point, he would prefer a young man who could take a drink ’ike a Christian rather than a rabid prohibitionist (anplause). There was no doubt that drink had destroyed some homes, but more would be destroyed under prohibition. Ife attributed the wave of crime to an aftermath of the war, not to drink. He was in the U.S.A, in the early part of the present year on his way back to New Zealand from Ottawa, and he stayed about a month in San Francisco, another in Boston, and a few weeks in other parts. He obtained his facts from what his friends told him, his own observations, and official records. Liquor in itself was not evil, and the

sale in itself was not evil, but if evil did arise it might do so from an unworthy 'publican pushing liquor on a man or a man’s own mental instability, for neither of which the trade waa to blame. That was how he reconciled the trade to the gospels. He had not stated that Pussyfoot had said he would bend the people’s will to prohibition. On the point concerning the holding of another referendum, Mr. Heathcote said that, as he understood the position, an Act of Parliament to repeal the present Act would have to be passed by a three-fifths majority in order to give the electors another vote on the licensing issue. (Extended report published by arrangement).