MR STEVE BOREHAM AND PROHIBITION.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 291, 4 December 1902, Page 3

MR STEVE BOREHAM AND PROHIBITION.

to Tin; KDii'oß. W n not :.w re until Saturday t iat my letter ui your issue of the 22nd had evoked so much comment and had : provided Mr Boreham with subject matter for his speech in the park last • Sunday. It was very umhoughtful of him not to wait until i was present, as it would prolnbly have been a little more 1 interesting. 1 did not hear the purport 1 of his remarks, other than ho was very 1 personal. Mr Boreham, in his letter 1 whit h appeared in your issue of the 25th, ' g ies on to speik of the “ State of Maine ' and the Clu-ha district.” It is -he mam Bta'e of New Zealand about which lam 1 most concerned. If Prohibition be a 1 f dime in Maine I would like to know 1 how it is that the people have vetoed the 1 liqm r trade for the last 52 years ? Hrw 1 is it ihat the poop'o in C'ptba have aj. ain carr ed Prohibition at the point oi i e publican’s bayonet ? • Mr Boreham would 1 h'veus b lieve that drink is a virtue when licensed, and a crime when prohi- 1 h ted ! It is marvellous lio-v clearly he 1 Can see the evils of dri k under Prohibition, and how silent he is over ’he evi s of drink under license! He admits drink to be an evil. I suppose in his estimation it is only an evil when the 1 law is evaded, Is there any case in Clutha or Maine, to be compared whh the local case t ied 1 before the h ipenduty magistrate in | Timaru, where a father n ked for a prohibition order to be taken out agai st i his 3 oung son ? Ti is is no isolated ca=e, as instil' ces of infantile drunke .ness are ti be seen every day in the we k. Boys act as their lather acts or as they see others act, and the} - cons de>" it manly 1 so to do. These are the future men of i N-W Zealand, and if we d > not try to 1 prevent their downfa 1 (by the removal i of the temptation) w-’ are unworthy of I the name of men. According to Mr Boreham, we see the sad effect- of drink in Maine ami Clutln, but where is the '< cause? Ah ! that is the question of . questions. We are told that 1; inhibition never can prohibit. Why? Is the law > powerless? Are our boasted institutions < an empty mockery ? Is it possible that < we have laws upon the Statute Book i f I our land, with an army of ofli ;ers to • a imini tor tlr-m, and Lh • y omnot be 1 enforced ? The wh de thing i j a fa oe and ’ a by word on the lair colony ol New i Zea'and, Is it po.-sible that the olhcers i of adminisara ion become cor.upted and < subservient to the die ale = of a miserable i minuiily? If this be true, and I hive no reamn to doubt it, th»te is little wonder why p, ohibition in Am'-nca an 1 Clutha is not a success. I an afraid if the great Bismark were alive he would sa}’ of New Zealand what he eaid of Ameiica. “ Tliat they wore a corrupt and rotten Republic who f osee as a censure upon the other nations,” The trade, backed up by the churches (be it s id to _ their lasting and the adminislraiion ol law, do their level b.cst by foul slander, ; to blackball Prohibition, to make it pnsqccessfql. As with communities, so lb is with individuals. No sooner does a person express himself herself in favour of Temperance than it is hin ecl by the bacchanalians that he or »he drinks privately. Could no 1 ' Mr Boreham trot out some o her chestnut as that one ] is worn out? Drink is an aclmPted evil, even by Mr Boreham, and what are the facts? Are not our asylums, our inebriate homes, our criminal courts, and our gaols all filled bj' the victims of the drink demon ? These poor unfortunates have all to be maintained by the ratepayers. Publicans pay their share, it is true, but they have created the necessity for the-m institutions, and the trade ought to maintain them wholly. The existence of these institutions alone—not to speak of the army of law officers ought to demonstrate to every f-ane person the evils of drink, and the necessity for some drastic measure of reform. Make the penally of sly grog selling and drinking imprisonment without the option of a fine, then Prohibition will prohibit. We prohibit the opium smoker, and why not drink ? If the liberty of the individual has to be consider ed, why interfere with the liberty of the Chinaman ? Why interfere with the liberty of the master in exploiting the labour of his servant ? All 'aws are prohibitive, and if we will not be prohibited we must softer the consequences. Prohibition has power to prohibit if our legislative and adminu trative machinery were purged from corruption* Why should not a bare majority rule in Prohibition as in other State laws? We have, in a matter which affects the mental and physical condition of the people, to submit to the rule of a “ miserable and subservient” minority. T ke the state of the poll for thirty-seven electorates before me, which are as follows : Licenses, 89,554 ; Reduction, 86,304; and Prohibition, 94,238, which gives a large majority in favour of reform nf the liquor laws. I am errtain that the results would be still more satisfactory if the Licensing Poll was on a separate day, and the ballot papers made so as the most illiterate voter could understand. Two issues are quite ample to be before them, i.e., Prohibition and Continuance If these alterations were made, Prohibition would be carried every time, hands down, To vote reduction of license is not only an insult to the peoples’ intelligence, but a greater injustice to the trade than Prohibition. According to the gospel of Mr Boreham this colony has not as high a percentage of drunks as New York, But this is an unfair comparison. The population of New York far exceeds that of this colony, consequently the living area is more congested—more than equal the population of New Zealand are slum dwellers. Drunkenness and crime ate under the immediate supervision and power of the law. The eoci d condition of the people bears no comparison to our social condition. What is applicable to auy town or oity cannot be a just comparison with a much scattered country like New Zealand. If our officers desired to arrest all the people they saw drunk they would 80" ii increase the percentage of New Zealand. Although a p-rson may be permitted to get drunk a hundred times boro—but let the same person be iiesn reeling from one side of a street to the other in any of our towns and dues, I ho would he promptly arrested. Hence i wo see the reason why the percentage of j drankenm;** U higher In towns and cities than it is in rural districts. As to Mr Boreham asking me to point

out “ aoy word or action of Ins that "as India reet ” this I have already done in my last letter. He d-nies pleading for a cause, bat says that lie is a amsl Prohibition. Mr Bareham nm-t possess a fine sen.e of distinction between c.iue and effect. A licensed house expo ing liquor for sale is the cause, and drunkenness is the effect. Remove the license, the temptation is gone, and the * fleet will be seen in the sobriety of the people. Mr Boreham denies receiving payment of £6 per week for his services from the trade. If this statement be untrue why did not Mr Boreham say it wa*, for it is an echo of his own words to members of his own union. Speaking of Barclay, Mi'ler and Arnold they are not labour repieientatives, and Mr Boreham knows well that Mr Taylor (Christchurch) is now an accepted labour represen ative. The gentleman referred to by Mr B ireham an being a Prohibitionist and spending £42 touring New Zealand, never was a Frulllblliuilisli in nn abstain*-, an<i navp.r a lab >ur leader. He wis t-availing here for his health, an I I know that he did not spend £42 in boose, because he did not possess that amount. Suppose he was a tee:olaler, was it likely, as a labour le. turer that he would betray himself by di\uiging ■ his secret to Mr Boreham, v), Boreham insinuates thit I drink long bo-rs. Soldo when I require one. I never did as an abstain-r, nor yet do I wish to | ose as a marjyr w ien I say that I .m wiling to d . wiih ut tba long beer if by so doing I will benefit my weaker brother. Many voters who are , ad.limed to drink have voted Prohibition ( in order th u the te ptation may be | removed. M: Boreham goes on to state, | “ Had the publicans of this distiict done ! half as much for m s as I know they have i done for my friend Instead j

of this Mr j *xon shows his gratitude by advising his fellow workers to throw thorn into the street without consideration.” In the first place, I have no qmrrel with the publierns, and never had. I simply don’t know them. Any benefits I hive re eived from them I have paid for at the time of receiving them, I owe thou milling, and whether they be friend or foe matters little to me. They cannot do any more for me than I can do for myself. They cannot benefit me in any way, neither do I desire to “ smooge” up -n tlu-ra. Mr Boreham, spiking to my wife the other day said ; “ Thd I would iind the pubdeans would prove my best iriends.” I desire neither their friendship nor their nimey. Ispck and write tearless of friend or foe, for a cause which 1 believe will be bene lie al ro the community- It doe* not concern me whe her they are th own in o the street without consideration (r not. If anyone deserves consideration it is th i peopie wh > suft-r from the drink—the staging wife and family. The publican knows the Uw, and if he m kes a bad deal he must suffer as other tradesmen suffer who siock an article lhai has gone out of i-'emand. No one thinks nf compensation for a legitimate tradesman for his losses which may be caused through bad debts contracted by a person who wl-hes to spend his cash for drink instead of paying his tradesmen’s accounts. It is evident that the trade would not be oppo ed to the law of Prohibition if coupled with compensation* Mr Boreham sayr that he has been against local option fur the last eighteen 3’u ,rs. I may be wrong, but I fancy that he spoke in favour of it at Mr Fee’s meeting in Oamam during the opening of the uiinprign. Mr Boreham is like a 1 the young girls writing their love letters, they must have a postscript. If Mr ILreham “ was in Timaru district 1 ist week Carrying hie swag looking for woik,” he must have a knack of being in tw o places at once. Mr Boreham says he would bo glad of something to do, if th >.t is so, w.iy not accept bis brother’s offer to go to Dunedin to take charge of his yacht at £4 per week,”—Yours, etc., J. B. St. V. Jaxok.