THE REV FEE AND STEVE BOREHAM.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 275, 28 October 1902, Page 3

THE REV FEE AND STEVE BOREHAM.

TO THE EDITOR. gl ß) —Before proceeding to deal with theßev. Fee's figures, etc., I would like it to be distinctly understood that I do not claim, nor do I desire, to take up the cause of the publicans, and anything I have ever written or said on the prohibition question was done with the object of saving my fellow colonists from grasping a shadow, that in sub3tance will scatter in its path evils that one shudders to think of, and I- am convinced in my own mind that when the present tide of mad enthusiasm subsides and sober reason again recovers from the delirium she has been plunged into by the wild and extravagant utterances of ministers of the gospel of prohibition I feel sure that every vestige of the former frenzy will be abolished in consequence of the latter state being worse than the former, and what is more serious will be more difficult to remedy. As an illustration of this, I would draw your attention to the fact that the sale of alcohol has been permitted during the Jast 300 years, and during the latter half of that period church (dissenting church) ministers have been advancing every argument, fair and unfair (mostly unfair), in support of the abolition of the sale of intoxicants, and we find that at present in no part of the world have b«en successful. Previous to intoxicating liquors becoming an article of commerce it was given away free of charge in safe quantities to those who might apply for it to the monastic institutions that obtained in those times. The institutions, which were under the

control of the monks, were wMI and religiously managed, and .in no instance are we told that drunkenness or excess in alcohol was permitted bv those good and learned peopK I would refer your readers to such historians and reliab e journals as the following : The Quarterly Review, December 1811; Mallet's History of the Swiss, Vol. I, page 10a; Bates' Rural Philosophy, page !)22 ; DraWs Literary Hours, Vol. 11, page 435 ; Turner's History of England, Vol. 11, page 332. By referring to these your readers will learn that the drink which inebriates was in good hands, so good indeed that we read in no history of the times men making beasts of themselves just because they choose to do so and because the drink was purchased and therefore their own to drink and burst themselves with if they so desired, a 3 now. But in th~se by-gone days there were men, as there are at present, awaiting an opportunity to rise to wealth a-id notoriety on the gullibility and desit es of the mob who cried aloud to have those desires gratified. Consequently there was a man arose, and strange to say history tells us this man was a minister of the reformed church, who decried the meagre way in which the monks doled out small beers. This met with the consent ot a large number of the people, with th« result that this minister started forthen-st time in England, the retail | sale of beer, wine, etc., and in a short time after this beer was to he purchased in every bishop's palace in the kingdom. Thus was it that the sale of intoxicants was instituted in England by those same churchmen who are now trying to bring about another change, that has been proved the world over to be a notorious and evil-sreatini failure. But, say the Prohibitionists, it is not a failure. They say it has been and is a success in America. It is, say the advocates ot prohibition, an unqualified success in our ow> pet electorate, Glutha. I. submit it is not a success in any of the American States where it has been tried. This can be easily proved by reading over the police statistics dealing with drunkenness Take Portland, in the State of Maine, for instance, and what do we find. Why, | the figures are appdliug after one has been used to hearing ministers of God's holy word thunder rorth from every platform in this country that the State of Maine is a standing example of the good results of the prohibitory law. Those figures to my mind conclusively prove that drunkenness is 9o per cent greater than in the State of New York, and that the . evils emanating from prohibition are simply staggering to one's sense of morality. Then take the State of Kansas, another State held up by prohibition lecturers to be emulate 1, and what do we find The first prohibitory law enacted in this State prohibited for ever the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. Was this law a success. Emphatically no, or why should the Legislature oi the same State, in 1885, and again in 1837, amend the law passed in 1881, limiting the right to sell liquor to certain individuals, to wit, druggists and chemists. Is this not prima fact'' evidence that liquor was, as it is in that State to-day, being sold on the sly. The objects of the last Act pissed in this State were to create what is termed the metropolitan police. This is a body of lo.ial governing b'dies' appointees, who are set up to catch the perverters of the prohibitory law, and throughout the State of Kansas at the present time the rrot ardept advocates of prohibition admit that these same police are ]& [greater evil in themselves than ever the open saloon could be. But we need not now go to America, say the prohibitionists, to show you what a grand thing prohibition is. Just look at our own Clutha ; there crime has decreased, drunkenness has almost disappeared, everywhere the people show signs of content, thrift and prosperity. Ah, my dear friends, take heed lest you be led astray by such beguiling language. The ministers may be acting blindly and from information gained from an unreliable source. This was amply demonstrated to me the other evening by the R'=v Fee, who, in reply to a question by myself, said he did not mix up with such company as the gut boy, the bootlegger, the joints or the sly grog seller. Quite so, my reverend friend, this is just the verv reason why your advice on the results of no-license in Clutha should be taken with the usual pinch of salt. I submit that in order to ascertain the true state of affairs in Clutha one will have to mix with the' gentlemen above mentioned. The Rev Fee must have a poor opinion of the intelligence of his j audience if he runs away with the idea that he could ascertain the true results of prohibition in Clutha by going there for a few days in his capacity oLa minister of the gospel and passing his evenings in the luxuriously furnished sitting room of some of his fellow ministers. Should the Rev. Fee, or any othar advocate of prohibition, desire to ascertain the true results ot prohibition in Clutha. let them put up " bluey " and pay a visit to that electorate with myself, when they will learn of the existence of evils never dreamt of previous to no-liceuse being carried. Let me, in passing, state thai there is at least one Presbyterian minister in Now Zealand who follows out our Saviour's commands to the letter. He is to be found in any of the public houses, at all hours of the night, in all parts of his charge, and when he is at ho ne at his man3e his company are usually hard-ups, drunks getting over their debauch, and belated swaggers. I have known this good man to go miles to bring a swagger to his house, feed him and give him a good bed. Should ever 'his reverend gentleman go to Clutha and come back and tell us that prohibition is a success I for one will believe him. The reverend gentleman here referred to has the good opinion and admiration of working men of all denominations in and out of his charge. I may here state that we a short time bask made him a gift of a horse and trap worth £6O, this to practically show the esteem in which we hold him. But enough; prohibition i 3 not a success in Clutha or indeed anywhere else, and no matter how the Rev Fee or any one else may try to delude the people by adducing columns of, as it is admitted, unofficial figures, the fact remains that prohibition in Clutha is a miserable and wretched failure. And now to deal with the reverend gentleman's latest. I would ask, is it reasonable to expect me to take him seriously when he makes such an obvious misuse of figures as to assert t hat in the year 1901, 8057 were convicted for the first time, when the official figure give this number a?the total convictions for the colony, surpassingly strange, this ! Re Mr Fee's comparison of the convictions for drunkenness as between Ashburton and Clutha. This goes to

prove to my mind that the reverend gentleman is a past master at the art of misleading. Eet us see how far he is from the truth. I find, faom the most reliable source, that public drunkenness in Clutha is on the increase, as are all other classes of crime. I have before me figures that show that during three years there were 35 convictions for drunkenness, and for the period of four and a-half years 52 convictions. The reverend gentleman's figures are obviously unfair when compared with the above, and cannot be accepted as a truthful statement of the position. Altogether there are upon record 2 37 conviction for all classes of crime d uring the same period. This does not go to dhow prohibition in Clutha has done anything in the direction of decreasing crime With regard to the letters Mr Fee su-.d he read at his Oam»ru meeting I hsv aothing to say, and did I ever Bay thic he did uot read such lette ra, What I do say is that the letters read were not written by persons in a position to give

an opinion on t'->e effect of prohibit n in Clutha. How is it possible Icr oven the Rev Fee to speak with authori y on the question when he admitted in Oamaru chatduriog his visit to Clu ha he was the guest of the Y.W.CT.U. or some other reverend gentleman. To ascertain the results of prohibition in the Clutha, Y.W.C.T. unions are not the company to keep. One must mix with the people to be able to get at the truth. But Mr Fee declines to. do this. He would rather, like the epburian gods, stand aloof and be contented to sit in the lap of luxury while poverty, crime, »hame, sin and filth lay welteting under his very nose. No, my friend, if you have an honest desire to find the truth and see for yourself the evils of prohibition in Clutha you will have to associate with others than ministers of religion,—l am, etc., Steve Bokeiiam.