TEMPERANCE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2214, 25 June 1891, Page 2

TEMPERANCE.

TO TUB EDITOR. Sib, —Mr Cooper's explanation of the Kev Mr Hamilton's position in regard to the prohibition movement does not in my opinion do justice to the latter gentleman, ai it does not explain whether Mr Hamilton was a prohibitionist or the contrary. Before Mr G-lover's meeting was held, Mr Hamilton told me " That he had been asked to take the chair and had consented, on the understanding that be was not a prohibitionist, and should consider himself at liberty to express his views." I believe he did give an expression of opinion as on the morning following I was told by one of those present " That Mr Hamilton was a nice man to have taken th 9 chair at the meeting when it was very evident that he was not a prohibitionist judging from his remarks." On Monday June Bth, Mr Hamilton was chairman at Mr E. T. Smith's lecture, and made clear to those present by the illustrations he -used that he was strongly oppossed to prohibition; but no attack was made upon him that evening by Mr Smith, who calmed his righteous indignation down until the Total Abstainers Re-Union on last Thursday night, and then as Mr Hamilton was absent took the opportunity of " going for " him. It is the first time I ever heard of a social where the eyenings amusement mainly consisted of a vigorous attack on an absent man. The main charges being "That Mr Hamilton supported prohibition only when it was popular;" "That he opposed prohibition because there were men in his congregation he dare not offend; " " That he stood up for publicans because some rich publicans contributed to church funds." The first charge I have already answered I think in Mr Hamilton's favor. The second was only a supposition on the part of Mr Smith, and an apology is due by him to Mr Hamilton for making such a statement on a public platform. The third is an injustice both to Mr Hamilton and the " rich" publican, Mr Hamilton having nothing to do with the receipt or disbursement of church funds, that being the duty of the officers of his church; and the " lich " publican is a member of the Anglican Church, and his children attend its Sunday Schoel, therefore, I asked him to contribute to the building fund which he readily did; Mr

Smith insinuated that money was given as a bribe. Mr Smith Bays he would not take money from s publican, and he was glad Mr Dellow would also refuse it. How will Mr Smith get round thiii little fact?—That a publican contributed to the fund which was recently raised for Wesleyan Parsonage additions and furniture, and that the money has been expended; also that members of the Good Hope Lodge solicited aid from an ex-publican and present owner of a hotel for the same purpose. Yours, etc., E. C. Dawk,