PROHIBITION MEETING.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2189, 16 April 1891, Page 3

PROHIBITION MEETING.

A meeting for the purpose of educating the public on the question of prohibition was held in the Oddfellows’ Hall, Geraldine, on Monday evening last. The building was packed. Mr W. E. Barker occupied the chair, and on the platform were the Revs. J Preston (Anglican), and W C Wood (Primitive Methodist), Dr R Eish, and Messrs J Aitken, R Ila TV, m''nd, L Newport, J M Sutherland, and E Baiter. la opening the meeting Mr Barker said that in calling the meeting the Good Templars were only acting up to their principles as Good Templars, endeavoring to educate the people upon the question of prohibition. If those opposed to prohibition called a meeting of their own he had little doubt the prohibitionists would come and hear what they had to say. He hoped the meeting would be conducted n a fair and honest spirit. Bach one of them would have to answer before God for the opinions they have formed in this world. Eor his part he looked upon drink as a curse, and therefore he had taken the pledge, and finally joined the Good Templars. He reminded the opponents that the Good Templars had taken the hall, and the meeting was theirs, and he hoped he would not have to call anyone to order. Before sitting down he said Dr Eish wished to explain the reason why he had not taken the chair. Dr Eish explained that be had not taken the chair first because he was not sufficiently posted up in the subject; secondly, he was, as they knew, a moderate man, but not a total abstainer ; thirdly, there were people in the district whom he had known for the past 20 years whose interests were largely involved in this matter. He had always been well treated by them, and he did not feel prepared to go against them. His fourth reason was that he was too often upon that platform, and he would therefore rather berexcused. The chairman said the curse of the drink traffic was very early in life brought before him. The drink question was one of the most thorny they had to take up, and therefore politicians very frequently left it alone. Vested interest was the hardest subject they had to meet. He (the chairman) would have to tread on the corns of some of his friends if he went for prohibition, but he could not help that. He must look upon the misery drink was causing, and therefore go against it. Be'pointed out how the big brewers of England floated their businesses into big companies so as to get more vested interest on their side. He was convinced it was impossible to g properly, regulate the drink traffic. r> It had been tried for years, but had always failed. He pointed out that the present contest was a perfectly fair one. They nominated their candidates and their opponents r nominated theirs. If the public wanted the hotels closed let them return the prohibitionists, if not let them return the liquor party. He gave some interesting details of how the contest had been fought out at Sydenham, and he urged the prohibitionists at Geraldine to fight it out on the same lines. He was totally opposed to allowing compensation to publicans. They were no more entitled to it than were the owners of the small coasting crafts when the Union and other big companies ran them out. The Rev. James Preston said he had no vested interests in publichouses, and did not think any publican had ever made money out of him. He y could not see, however, what prohibition would lead to. He bad always loved liberty, and hated anything in the way of coercion, and for that same reason he liked his liberty. He asked when men spoke so much about liberty, why should they want to bind men down so ? Why did they want to say, “ Gentlemen, you shall not have a glass of beer, or anything else; you shall not have more than five acres of land and a cow”? Why did they want to say in effect you shall live' down there, and I will keep you there ? With regard to the publicans they were looked upon by some as spiders who spread their webs, and then having got people into them sucked the life blood out of them, or like the octopus that enfolded its victim in its long arms and then sucked him to death. Eor his part he had lived in New Zealand 35 years, and when travelling through the land he had always found them very kind to him, and he had received a great deal of kindness from them. He instanced how, more especially in the early days, many a traveller when benighted out on the plains or elsewhere had hailed

with joy the light of the publichouse, and had been Bayed from spending the night in the open air, and perhaps from losing his life. He did not believe in this forcing of men, and saying , you shan’t do this and you shan’t do \ that. If they stopped the publichouses ' they would have sly grog shops all over the place. Those who could afford it would have the drink at home in their private houses. He also spoke about the alarming extent to which ether was being drunk iu some parts? of the Old Gonntry. If a man could not keep himself from drinking to excess they should get hold ofg that

man and slop him from drinking. Ho was a lunatic—was wrong in the head —and was not responsible for his actions, and should be put in gaol or somewhere else where he could not get the drink. If Mr Barker and hie friends were going to kill the publicans he hoped they would hang all £he brewers.

The Rev. W 0 Wood said the principle of the meeting seemed to be liberty and he claimed that principle, he believed in liberty for every man and for every principle and they were there to ask for nothing but liberty. They did not want favor from anyone

but they wanted a fair field. The law had made it so that they had a perfect right to come before any body of men and bring up the question of temperance. The law gave them the right to vote for public houses and also to vote against them if they liked. He claimed their right to put m a prohibition committee if they liked. He i stood there to say he was in favor of prohibition and he was proud of it, he was also a colonial and proud of that, and he hoped to live to see the day when that which was now proving a curse to the people et this colony was put beyond their reach, He contended that the old law which governad

the licensing committees was useless, as if thev brought such a radical change as the closing of the public houses for one year only, they could be back again the next. If the change were brought about now it would allow of ample time to prove whether prohibition was a success or not. They believed prohibition was needed. Their opponents were welcome to their own views. They had made a statement that they were going to vote for prohibition in principle. Some were going to vote against it not on principle but on account of the money they had in it. At this point the speaker drew the attention ot his hearers of the subleader which appeared in the Timaru Herald on the temperance question. He said it was one of the greatest pieces of rubbish he had ever seen in any newspaper in the colony. He read over the article in question, and pointed out that it commenced with an assertion that the temperance party were making a strong effort to force their own practice if not their own views upon their neighbours in some of the licensing districts, this ne said was a palpable lie. The prohibitionists were doing nothing of the sort. They told the people that the temperance party had nominated five men, and if they wanted prohibition let them put them in, if they did not want prohibition let them vote for the opposite party. Speaking of the Sydenham election he said he knew Sydenham before it had the public bouses and he had known it since, and he contended that it was a far better borough when withoui them. He had never before seen a place where the public houses were so well conducted as at Geraldine. He was decidedly opposed to reducing the public houses in Geraldine. It must be all or none. He would be no party to closing one house simply to make the other men richer. It was all very well to talk about men being lunatics because they gave wav to drink, but he contended that it was drink that made them lunatics, and caused them to act as such. In this connection he gave some striking anecdotes of the absurdities carried on by drunken men. He also reminded his hearers that there were far worse things than these that they all knew about. He said it was not the men they were fighting against —but the drink. It was a disgrace to the ministers ©f the Gospel that for too many years they had been countenancing that which was proving a curse to their fellowmen. If they really believed they did not need to shut up the public houses he honored their conviction, but for himself he was decidedly of opinion they should close them up. Speaking of vested interests, he brought down the house by repeating the circumstances of the man tried for stealing some

bocoh, and, although there was a clear case against him, the jury acquitted him. When asked the reason the accused explained that ten of the jury had had some of the bacon. With regard to interfering with the liberty of the subject he reminded them that they could only do as they liked so long as they kept within the law,' He illustrated this by what often happened if a man smoked in a railway carriage that was not a smoking carriage, and also by what happened if a man allowed his horse to die upon bis own section and failed to have it buried. Both section and horse might be his own, but he could not do as he liked. He concluded a telling speech by express- [ ing a hope that the contest would be r carried out in a perfectly fair spirit. If the prohibitionists were elected it would show that the had the majority of the ratepayers at their backs ; if the liquor party were elected it would show that they majority of the people were with theai. He urged upon them to fight the matter out in a fair and honorable spirit, . j

Mr Flatman said he believed in every man saying what he thought independent of what others thought The principle should be to serve Hod first and man afterwards. He believed in liberty, but they all knew that if a man had a kicking horse he strapped him down, and if they found that some of their fellow men were kicking over the traces, and they considered it was opposed to their present and future welfare, they should strap them down. He did not believe in raising up their fellow creatures at the

expense of one man. He was in favor of a small compensation clause for publicans. His reason for that was that if a person went to build an accommodation house he had to comply with the law, and provide a certain number of rooms, quantity of furniture, Ac, and he considered it would be unfair to him if he had to turn out of it in twelve months’ time He had not a penny of interest in hotels, but he would be sorry to see anyone wronged. He thought the clergy and men who were in high positions, men of birth and education, should be showing a better example to others.

Mr J. Aitken combated some of the arguments brought againstprohibition. They were not trying to make men sober by Act of Parliament, but they all knew that if they wished a child to be saved from cutting its fingers with'a knifs they took the knife away. He asked how it was that the liquor traffic had to be hedged round with so many regulations when many other businesses were not. The answer was that the drink traffic was injurious morally and spiritually, and therefore it had to be regulated by Acts of Parliament. They were striving to keep them from becoming bad rather than to make them good by Act of Parliament, and therefore they strove to close the doors of the publichouses, and preserve the morals of the com munity. As to liquor being a medicine let them get it where medicine wss to be got. As to the argument that people would get drink whether the publichouses were shut up or not his reply was that if they wished to get the drink let them do so by all means, but the idea was to prevent the temptation being continually before them. The argument that it would rob the working man of his beer was absurd. There might be a little nutriment in a pint of beer, possibly as much as there was in a penny loaf, but they knew Ihe difference in the price of the two, and if the working men chose to spend their money in that way of course they could do so. Another argument was that the closing of the publichouses would diminish the revenue of the local bodies, and it would have to be replaced by further taxes upon the ratepayers. He said that in the city of Corinth, in the days of Paul, the public revenue was largely derived from licenses upon public immorality. When the Apostle Paul went to preach there no doubt those who bad vested interests would come forward and ask how they were going to make up their revenue if they abolished these licenses. He could only say that they would listen to such an argument at the present day, It was his firm conviction that although the revenue of the town board would be diminished by prohibition the gain would be ample in the moral and spiritual improvement of the town. As for sly grog shops he was satisfied that let them make them where they liked they would not make them in Geraldine, After a few concluding remarks from the chairman the usual votes of thanks were passed, and the meeting terminated* At the requost of the chairman those interested in the movement remained behind, and a committee was formed to run a prohibition committee.