THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1895. PROHIBITION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2875, 1 October 1895, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1895. PROHIBITION.

The Liquor Bill has now passed the Lower House, and has, we are informed, a good chauce of a safe passage through the Upper House. That being so, it is, we think, time that Prohibitionists cousidered whether they have been always fair and just to the Hou. R. J. Seddon. The first thing they ought to remember is that no Premier would attempt to introduce a measure iuto Parliament unless he believed it has a good chance of passing. The great secret of success as a Minister is to be able to gauge the opinions of a majority of the members of Parliament so accurately that his measures will be acceptable to them. Ministers who fail in this respect come to grief. The Hon. Mr Dick, of Dunedin —a thorough Prohibitionist when a colleague of the late Sir Harry Atkinson, speut three years trying to pass an amendment to the Licensing Act, aud had to give it up in despair. Sir Robert Stout was Attorney-General in Sir George Grey's Ministry, and afterwards Premier, from 1884 to 1887, but made no attempt to reform our licensing laws. In both instances the cause was that public in the country nor in Parliament—was not ripe for it, and consequently they could not do it. In judging the present Premier it would be only fair to him to bear this in mind, but this has not been done. Prohibitionists have poured on him the vilest abuse, mis represented his actions, and attributed unworthy motives, ostensibly because he did not get a Liquor Bill to suit them passed through Parliament. Now, was it possible to have passed this measure sooner 1 Most undoubtedly it was not, and it would not have passed now only for the extension of the franchise to women. It is no use to try to hide it. The passage of the present Bill is a tribute to the female franchise, and we owe that to the present Government. Prohibitionists say that no credit should be given to Mr Soddou for the female franchise, but anyone who has the slightest sense of justice at all will not agree with them. The facts aro these: Most, if not all, of the Ministers, with I the oxcGp*»ou of the late Mr Ballance. I were at iirst oppose, t- of the franchise to women. The late Mr , Ballance was always a believer in the '-inchisemerit of women, i;nd when a ol -Meet W as iutro iucod by Sir u'.Uon thoiu.. ■'- matwi; up, and John Hall ho "took u.„ ~" 8111, embodied it in the Representing..

Whoa Mr Ballaue» handed over to Mr S.eddoii the veins of G■ivornnieiit ho loft him the enfranchisement of women as an lieirl )om. Mr S ;ddon could very easily have dropped it then if he hud a desire to do so, hut instead of doing ho lie stuck to it 11 mil it became law. That is the exact position, and we know of nothing more scandalous, dishonest, and unjust than to deny him credit for it. But only the Chrifjtchurch Prohibition clique have refused to do so, and wo ask, Is it fair to Mr Seddontobe forever abused, whatever ho may do ? 'f ho charge against him ia that he is not sincere. He cortaiulv has

not posed as a Prohibitionist, but these facta ought to be admitted : First of all, he received the thanks of Sir William Fox twelve or fourteen years ago for the assistance he rendered in getting Temperance legislation passed. Secondly, to deny him credit for the enfranchisement of women is dishonest. Thirdly, he has passed the present Bill through the Lower House now, and we ask who in New Zealand has done so much for Temperance ? But no doub; respectable and honorable prohibitionists will give credit to the Premier for the great work he has done. The Rev. Mr Walker, the secretary aud lecturer of the New Zealand Alliance, has done so already. He has, according to yesterday's telegrams, expressed a hope that the country would recognise Mr Seddon's sincerity, and said that he was personally indebted to the Premier and Mr Reeves for having accepted and inserted suggestions made by himself. How does this harmonise with Mr lsitt's utterances 1 Mr Isitt eaid Mr Seddon was the champion of the liquor ring, that he drew his inspiration from Mr Cowlishaw, and yet here is the very agent specially appointed by the Temperance party to watch their interests in Wellington stating the exact opposite. Then there is Mr H. B. Bell, a prohibitionist and a political oppouent, bearing testimony to Mr Seddou's sincerity, and assorting that he had done his best for it. i'heu there is Dr Newman, another prohibitionist, giving Mr Seddon " full credit" for it, and last, but not least, there is Mr McNab asserting that the Bill just passed was a great advance on his own Bill, and that he felt glad his own Bill had not paused. Mr McNab, it will be remembered, is the champion chosen by the prohibitionists, and the Bill he introduced was the one specially framed and adopted by the Prohibition Conference. There then we have friend and foe bearing testimony to Mr Seddon's sincerity throughout, and vse have the Rev. Mr Isitt aud Mr T. E. Taylor, him denouncing iu thefoulk&t and filthiest language. Who then are we to believe 1 Are we to believe Messrs Isitt and Taylor who are admittedly biassed against Mr Seddon, and who have to depend on second-hand information, or are we to take the words of the men who are behind the scenes and wh o know exactly whai, is going on ? Mr Isitt did not Iriug a

single charge against Mr Seddon which he could prove of his own kuowledge. Somebody told him a cock-and-bull story and he went about retailing it, quite regardless as to whether it was true or false. He told us that Sir Robert Stout had proof that Clause 21 was drafted by Mr Oowlishaw. Sir Robert Stout also boasted he had proof of the black list of the railway servica, but when the matter was tested it was fouud to be another cock-and-bull story. Is it not possible it wa3 so as regards Clause 21 1 It has boon so with ev3ry charge preferred by Mr Isitt against Mr Seddon ; not one of them has been substantiated; they are founded on hearsay evidence, and it was scandalously dishoiio3t to make use of them. But the battle is now practically over, and the men who have been behind the scenes have given a flat contradiction to all that has beeu said agoinst Mr Seddon. Wo trust, therefore, that prohibitionists vvill think the matter over, and consider whether it is not just as likely that prohibitionist members of Parliament are speaking the truth as Mr Isitt ? The members of Parliament have personal knowledge of what they are talking about; Mr Isitt's is all hearsay evidence. Reasonable beings cannot have much difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the members are more likely to be correct than Mr Isitt, and for this reason we think that if Prohibitionists have the slightest sense of justice they will give Mr Seddon credit for what he has done. No Bill involving so much vested interest has ever been introduced into Parliament, which passed with fewer amendments. That proves two things : (1) That it was drafted with an honest intention, (2) that Mr Seddon gauged very accurately what would pass. There is here further proof of Mr Seddon's sincerity, and if prohibitionists continue to abuse him in the future as in the past it will be the duty of every honest man and woman to dissociate themselves from a party so unfair, so ungonerous, and so ungrateful. Wo feel certain, however, that moat prohibitionists will give Mr Seddon credit for what he ha 3 done, and that Mr Isitt will not find in future that to abuse him will be as acceptable as it has been in the past.