THE Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1885. INTEMPERANCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1448, 31 December 1885, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1885. INTEMPERANCE.

Tntbmpirancb has from time immemorial been made the subject of liars!) awa and severe punishment. The ancient Britons used to stifle habitual drunkards in mire; in the days of Olliver Cromwell they were compelled to wear a distinctive badge, so (hat they might be known and shunned by society, snd so on down to our own day, when liquor-sellors are prohibited from selling drink to them. Dr Daiah D* Zouclie, Honorary Surgeon to the Dunedin Hospital, in a little pamphlet which he has been kind enough to forward to us, has suggested a more humane and generous treatment. He starts with a theory which is by no means new, viz., that inebriety is a disease, and ought to be treated as such instead of being regarded as a crime. He ho'ds that it is a disease t-f the nervous system, caused by the nutrition of nerve centres falling so low that “ there is not a sufficient stock of force necessary for the due performance of nerve function. The deficiency reaches such a degree that the want is keenly felt by the patient, and he flies to any remedy which will supply that want.” No doubt this is the want the “ thirsty soul” feels when he goes for “ a nip to steady his nerves.” Dr De Zoucho makes a distinction between what he calls a “tippler” and an inebriate. He is not very clear on this point, but we infer from him that a “ tippler ” is a person who sipa his glass whenever he can get it, but does not feel an uncontrollable craving for drink ; while the “ inebriate ” breaks out in fits and starts, and cannot control his insatiable desire for it. It is with the inebriate—the person who feels his desire for drink uncontrollable—that Dr De Zoocbe deals. He deprecates regarding such a man os a drunkard ; he urges that be is suffering from a disease with the cause of which he rmy have nothing to do. At ibis point we most differ from him. There i« no man subject to such fits as he describes but has had something to do with it himself. The chief grounds on which he exonerates the inebriate from blame is that he inherits the disease from his parents. Without a doubt parents transmit to their offspring many of their constitutional infirmiiies, and possibly amongst them the predisposition to drink. No one will dispute this, hut at the same time it must bo remembered that if the person inheriting such an unfortunate desire never tasted drink he would never have felt the want of it. The natural desire for if may be there, but if not developed it will remain latent, and consequently we hold that Dr Da Zouclie goea a little too far when he exonerates inebriates from all blame. On this ground we hold that the desire for diink is acquired more frequently than inherited ; in fact, it appears to us that all that is inherited is a constitutional incapacity to resist it. To put it plainly, it is an appetite created by use, and all its inherited elements are a weak will and string desires. So far the poor wretch whose folly has made him the victim of intemperance must claim our sympathy, although we cannot exonerate him from all blame, I here is no cure for him but the one, am) that is not to taste it. If parents, like the ancient Grecians, instilled into the minds of their children a horror of drink, and if more prominence were given to it in our schools, fewer would be “ constitutionally neurotic ” so far as drink is concerned,

But the proposal which Dr De Zouche makes for lh& treatment of inebriety is after all the most important feature of his pamphlet. He argues that it is a curable disease ; that its victims ahould be confined in retreats suitable for their condition, and that it is the duty of the Stale to provide such retreats. The proposal evidently proceeds from humane intentions and

generous impulses, but we think that the provisions for treating such cases already in existence are adequate. Dr De Zouche finds fault with placing inebriates in a ward of an asylum, because (be name of “ asylum ” is repulsive to their feelings, and be also objects to them being brought before a judge for committal to the asylum. Whatever the first objection may be, the second one is groundless. Persons’ liberties cannot be talren away from them without a full enquiry into the right to do so, and no person is more .competent to make such an inquiry than a Judge of the Supreme Court. If this precaution were not taken, it is possible that persons would be placed in those private retreats so as to pul them out of the way. As regards opening special establishments for the cure of drunkenness, we do not believe they would be a success. The shearer, the harvester, or other laborer, who comes into town and gets drunk, and, after being fined ss, clears out and is not seen for months, could not be shut up in such places ; tba man who drinks through the day but never gets drunk, and Ihe man who drinks at night and is ready for his work next morning, are not fit subjects for being shut up in durance vile. There remain only the sottish drunkard, who drinks whenever he can get it, and the dipsomaniac, who has bis periodical “ bursts,” and we feel confident that these are not so numerous as to warrant the Govern ment in building special retreats for 'bun. “ Prevention is better than cure.” Inebriety is an effect which has a cause, and the only comprehensive way of tieak ing with it is to remove the cause. Drink is not necessary to existence—it is the cause of much evil—and the best way to deal with it is not to touch it.