PROHIBITION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2449, 10 January 1893, Page 4

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— So it would appear that prohibitionists only speak figuratively when they denounce the public houses and the publicans. It is only the drink. I heard one announce from the platform of the Volunteer Hall one Sunday evening that it was a damnable traffic, and they were damnable men who were engaged in it. Was that figurative language'? Having attended all the prohibition meetings in the district, I must say that I have heard some very strong and very strange language. However, I will shift with them, and deny that drink is the cause of drunkenness. It is the drinking, the consumption of alcoholic liquors,' as Argus puts it; and this brings us no nearer a solution of the problem. We want to know why it is consumed. True if there was no drink there would be no drunkards; if there was no property there would be no thieves; if there were no women there would be no libertines. It is a small word if, but it covers a great deal. We are asked to suppose that both the brewing and distilling of drink, as well as its sale, was prohibited, and what would be the result ? If drunkenness was a suppositious evil we might think that it could be got rid of by supposing, but these suppositions have been in vogue so long now that one would think it was time to look for some other remedy. According to Mr Isitt, all that we are asked to suppose now was “ suppose when three houses supplied all the drunkards in London.” If we compare that time with the present we are forced to the conclusion that drunkenness has thriven as well on prohibition suppositions as Mr Isitt himself, and he says that he never was fifteen stone in his life before. Let us suppose that vegetarianism is only a fad, and that vegetarians were trying to prohibit the use of flesh meat, and we in the letter over the signature of MorePork have a sample of the reception they would get from prohibitionists, and yet they think those who differ with them will be gulled into being coerced by them. Truthful James, your suppositions are the suppositions of conceited ignorance. Coercion is never successful. It has not been successful in the government of Ireland; even More-Pork also gives a good sample of the arguments advanced ideas are met with. He actually insinuates that 1 am morally-.indebted to the butchers to the amount of £240 or £250 for what 1 have never got and have been better without. Why didn’t he tell me how much I owe the publicans 1 Are we to assume that prohibitionists pay their contributions to them regularly! Now I wish it to be understood that I am not discussing Christianity,or Temperance, or Vegetarianism, or myself, or anything outside of Prohibition, and henceforth all side issues I will ignore, otherwise 1 never would get into the subject I have taken up. My reason for opposing Prohibition is because I think it is like a finger-post pointing the wrong way. If anyone can give me a reason for thinking different I will consider it. Truthful James, it is senseless to affirm that your first is not till someone has said that it is; I have not. Your second I have denied. Proof of your third would settle the question. Fourth, in the name of common sense tell us how unlicensed drink would do less harm than licensed, and prove that it would only exist to a very limited extent. It will be soon enough to talk of refuting me when I have given my theory, which (D.V.) I will. Argus seems to think that my second letter was written in answer to his. That is a mistake. As he said nothing in favor of Prohibition there was nothing in his letter to answer. His second effort in to-day’s issue is in the same position, as I will have nothing to do with hair-splitting quibbles that are foreign to the subject in hand. As to personal abuse of myself I never thought of it. After what I have heard prohibitionists say about others I will be very thankful if they let ■me off with nothing less than personal abuse, but they might as well go down to the riverbed and fire chuckle stones at the riflemen’s target. It is all bumkum of Argus to write in this strain. He knows perfectly well who I am, and that I am long-patient and forbearing, even to a man who has repeatedly broken his promise to me. The fact is he is a bit peppery himself, and wants to make believe that I am. Mr Isitt stipulated that if anyone had pluck to tackle the prohibitionists that they were to hit as hard as they could. I will not hit as hard as I can (unless they get my dander up), because I don’t want to hurt them too much ; but they have had it all their own way for a long time now, and are not to get off so easy as they might think. Unless they can give us reason to believe that they are right we are not to have their fad literally crammed down our throats,—-I am, etc., Neutral. Jan. 3. ——

[Unless you come to whatever point you are driving at very soon, wo caftTOt give much more room to this spread-eagle sort of thing.— Ed.]