PROHIBITION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2444, 29 December 1892, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —If your correspondent had chosen " Prohibitionist" for a nom de plume, it would have been more appropriate than "Argus." They—the Prohibitionists—are always ready to jump down one's throat, boots and all, as soon as one shows the least sign of doubting the supreme excellence of their plan. I have somewhat reluctantly accepted their often reiterated challenge to refute the absurd assertion that prohibition is the only remedy for drunkenness, and that only those who are biased by either a depraved appetite for alcohol or monetary interest doubt that it is so. The personal abuse that prohibitionists heap on all who differ from them is to me a certain sign that the theory cannot bear the scrutiny of reason. Argus's letter is not a bad sample of their style of argument—a style we are so much used to that it is not worth noticing—and I will only allude to one of his fallacies : the rest are so selfevident. He accuses me of trying by a side wind to prove Christianity to be the reason for drunkenness. I have not tried to prove anything. I believe that drunkenness is the effect of a cause, or rather of certain causes, which I will I allude to later on—if you, Mr Editor, will permit the question to be threshed out in your columns. Saying that drunkenness has never prevailed but in Christendom is only stating a historical fact; one fact is not sufficient proof of anything but coincidence. Argus must have been under some mental optic illusion when he thought that this historical fact would of necessity limit the prevalence of drunkenness to less than two thousand years. Does- he mean to insinuate that Christianity is a dogma of less than two thousand years standing 1 We have beeu taught that it is a revelation of far greater antiquity, and that the event of 1392 years ago was the fulfilment of a promise, or the realisation of a' preexisting faith or belief. At all events, if we have the least faith in the truthfulness of theological history we cannot doubt that the theory of substitution was promulgated and believed more than five thousand years ago, and I repeat that I have no doubt but that that doctrine is largely responsible for the mental and moral condition compatible with drunkenness. Not to trespass too much on your space, I must close. This letter is a digression. If Argus wants me to reply again he must try some other strain. I am prepared to discuss prohibition by answering arguments in its favor, but I am not to be coerced to believe what he believes with no better reason than that he believes; his always having believed so does not prove that it is so. If prohibitionists really and truly believe that publichouses are the causes of druuken'tiess, they might condescend to tell us . what was the cause of drunkenness before •the publichouses existed. It may be very stupid not to understand why anything can be the cause of what pre-existed, but abusing stupid people for their stupidity only makes them more stupid, and it is the pre-existenco that is my trouble with pubs, being the cause, and if they are not the cause prohibition is a mere chimerical fad.—l am, etc., Neutkal.