SHOUTING.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume II, Issue 53, 6 January 1868, Page 2

SHOUTING.

' >in In pur Christmas article we endeavourad^ip to show the advantage we should community, by banishing from our social'assemblies that excess which too often results in wr,aiigling and strife. Our remarks on that occasion will, we hope, not be slightly passed ’oyer. .. ;We know they. have attracted the attention of some of our readers, and it is with the desire of leading them to give practical effect to the suggestion then made that we are now writing. What then is it that leads to the excess to which we have, not only at our gatherings, but in our every day'life referred ? We have no hesitation in answering—it is the wretched custom of shouting, for . which colonial communities in general, and our own in particular, have become proverbial. This custom is excused, as being the result of the friendly social intercourse which happily exists among us as fellow settlers, each more or less known to the other; but we tear that a much lower sentiment than sympathy keeps the custom alive. Whatever may have originated it—a false pride has a great deal to do with it. A man goes into a Public House to get a a “ glass ’■ because he requires it, and without any intention of taking more: he finds there two or three people, with whom he has an acquaintance, and on account of that acquaintance, or more especially because it is the custom, he invites them and any strangers standing by to drink with him. Tqese drinks—or as they are called, thia “ shout ” —having been disposed of each of the party by turn, because he will not accept the “glass” given him, as an act of friendship, for which he is willing to be indebted to his friend, claims to have his “ shout ”; and so they go* on, the spirit of emulation in tolly urging them, until the whole party become more or less intoxicated, and then it is found that the “glasses”, cau.be counted by the hundred, and not seldom the champagne by the dozen. . This is no fancy picture—such events occur every day, and several times in the day, causing loss to individuals and misery to families, which would be to a great .extent avoided, if men discontinued challenging others to drink with them unless as an act of friendship, and if those to whom the courtesy was offered would be content to accept it in that spirit. The little acts of kindness, which friendship prompts us to pay to one another are deprived of their proper effect, if we keep too strict a debtor and creditor account of them. It is not in accordance with the rules of courtesy to return an offering, made in friendship, in the same kind in which it is received. If one friend sends another a brace of ducks, or some of the fruits of his orchard, it would bo illmannered—it would he an insult—immediately to return him a similar gift. Why then should we act on a different principal when the original offering is made in another form, especially when the result is proved to be so injurious, when under the guise of friendship serious injury is being done ? If then, as we believe our readers will admit, the custom of shouting is most injurious to the well-being of the community,'is there moral courage enough among us to break down that custom ? Let but three or four persons, in each section of the community, resolve to discontinue its use, and it will in ime die but.