Tuapeka Times AND GOLORELOS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1875. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 423, 6 January 1875, Page 2

Tuapeka Times AND GOLORELOS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1875. "MEASURES. NOT MEN."

Amid the dearth of other subjects, Mr. Fox, ex-preniier and the acting champion of Legislative restrictions on liquor traffic, has fallen like a windfall into the hands of Dmiedin editors and their correspondents. His lecture on the Permissive Bill has called forth, since its delivery, various leaders and many letters in their columns. We, in like extremity, may bo pardoned if we gather up some of the crumbs of their rich fare. Among the writers of the letters, the Rsv. Mr. Stanford has again, as justly taken to task by Mr. Fox, come to the front with his advocacy of moderation ; — a cause that needs no help. Tho modwrate men do not need it, and the immoderate find it so convenient a word — especially as put |by Mr. Stanford — that it can be made to embrace all degrees of indulgence, from the man who carefully " takes a little wine for his stomach's sake and frequent infirmities," to the man who can stow away bottles for otters' glasses, if only Jie can come up to the standard which Mr. Punch so facetiously puts at the dining room, after deep potations, to try the capabilities of a boon companion for the drawing-room and the society of ladies. — "Say that scenery is truly rural." — " That scenery — (hie) — is — (hie) — toor or ooral ; " and he i 3 allowed to pass. If we may believe onr contemporary tihe "Otago Guardian." Mr. Stanford finds himself at tho head of a disreputable tail. The inebriates in Dunedin and many throughout the Province are coming up behind and crying, •" Well done our side." This, we have no doubt whatever, is not vvjiat Mr. Stanford intended, but we have jusc as little doubt that it is what has happened. When on so slender a basis as Mr. Stanford has got, he recklessly asserts that our Lord, to teach us moderation, made a large quantity — 120 gallons — of strongly intoxicating wine, at the marriage feast of Oana, we need not feel at all surprised that the drunken hail him as their champion, and go on under hi 3 guidance, soddening their brains until * they become moral wrecks. Of course he is dead against the restrictive system. Well, it would not be amiss to give Mr. Stanford his heart's content of the trade by planting him all round, and his church aa well, with places license Ito sell beer, ~—s . His argument is for unlimited liberty to afford scope for self-re3traint. So we understand him at least. Then comes the "Daily Times," who professes to deal with the facts submitted by Mr. Fox, and to turn their edge by admitting that while the parishes in England, from which beer 'has been banished, are sober, and, as alledged, free from crime ; yet outside these parishes, there is much riot and disorder. Of course we must believe it, though the " Daily Times " gives no proof that this is all due to the parties in the beetles* ■ parishes, transgressing not only the bounds of the parish but the restrictiqns within the parish, _ And then, too, it appears that the parties resident .within such parishes have been "persecuted," (sic) into sobriety, Well, if it is so, we only wish we had some such bunevolent persecutors for all the inebriates in Otago. We feel satisfied that not a few of them would raise their hands after a year's trial of such restraint to "bless their persecutors ;" and the right-minded in the commuuifcy would say " Amen" to the blessing. Nor can we let otf'r friend ' the "Guardian" pass without picking up -a crumb from his table. He comes ..out very strong in defence of the " sacred ark of personal liberty." But onr friend forgets that the " sacred ark of personal liberty," as Mr. Fox reminds him, ia already invaded in

that special direction, and in how many more directions for the public good, our contemporary is too wise and too well iniormed to need any special enlightenment from. us. As we write, however, we feel strongly tempted to say that when he in commuii with ourselves in the person of the big " We" of the editorial sanctum get up to the boiling point of indignation over some moral obliquity, and would fain call a spade a spade, we are forced from fear of the law of libel to call it something very like an implement of horticulture, or even to give it a milder name. Our opinion is that it would affect the " sacred ark of liberty " very little to allow more restrictions in the direction desired by Mr. Fox — i.e., in giving the people snme say as' to the number of licensed houses they will have. For full restrictive measures as we said before, some monthsago, when commenting on Mr. Bright's speech at the Friends' Conference in London on the subject, thecountry is not yet educated, but we are willing that the education process should go on, and perhaps one efficient means is the imposition of restrictions, as the country is able to bear them. The amount of misery, crime, and anxiety, from this cause is so great as to call for a remedy, and we are very much in the mood to say, that having no special specific of our own we would extend a hearing to those who have, and to the extent that is possible afford scope to their remedial measures. We have not mentioned the "Evening Staj.*" in our list, as we got something more than crumb? from him.