THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Waikato Times, Volume XXX, Issue 2475, 22 May 1888, Page 3

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

TO THE BDTTOn.

Sir,—A copy of The Waikato Times of the 17th May has been sent to me, containan anonymous letter, the writer of which quotes some extracts from a speech on "Legitimate Prohibition," reported to have been made by a Mr Houchins, in Dunedin, a month ago. The anonymous writer does not approve of what Mr Houchins ia reported to havo said, and he calls upon mo, as " the leader of that crusade, the tem perance movement in New Zealand, to oxplain, or at any rate explain away the utterances," of my followers. Mr Houchins is a gentleman quite unknown to me, and, as far as [ know, is 110 follower of mine ; and I certainly feel no responsibility for his utterances, nor any obligation either to explain, or explain them away. Nevertheless, I have no objection, so far as I am able, to reply to tlio categorical questions which your correspondent puts.

His first is, "Is an adulterer or a murderer better qualified as an officer of a Church, than a man who sells liquor ?" Answer: I am not prepared to apportion between murderers, adulterers, and liquor dealers the amount of fitness which they respectively possess for office in a church. My own opinion is that no church possessing any self-respect will put into office any one of the three.

2. "Is a preacher of the Gospel justified in refusing to preach to a brewer, distiller, or publican?" Certainly not. He is "sent to call sinners to repentance," and it is his duty if he has a brewer, distiller, or publican in his congregation, to place plainly before him the character of the traffic in which he is engaged, and to impress upon him that if he professes to be a follower of Christ who sought the good of all men, he must cease from a traffic which inflicts the most terrible evils temporal and spiritual on mankind. So far from not preaching to him, the preacher should preach right straight at him, and make things so uncomfortable for him that he would either have to quit the traffic or quit the church. 3. "If he refused to preach to a brewer, etc., on whose shoulders does the responsibility of the loss of the brewer's soul rest ?" Practically on the brewer's. He must know what are the results of his traffic, and if he has any conscience at all, any bowels of compassion for the widow's, and orphans, and criminals he makes, he could not continue in it If he lulls his conscience and sleeps, he is the party on whom the chief responsibility rests, whatever other responsibility may rest on the preacher, who wrongly refused to preach to him. 4. " Should we socially ostraciso all dealers in liquor?" This question is rather ambiguous. What is meant by "socially" ostracise? Many persons will not buy groceries from a grocer who holds a bottle license. Is this socially ostracising ? Surely everyone has a right to deal with such grocers as he pleases. Others would not be oil familiar terms with a liquor trafficker; would not invite him to their houses nor admit him to personal intimacy. Is this "ostracising?" Surely every man may chooso his own acquaintances, and some may not like to choose such as have the smell of liquor on them. They may, as Jude says, "hate even the garment spotted by the flesh."

"If so, how can Roman Catholics, in view of His Holinoss's recent decision, practice boycotting?" His Holiness and the Roman Catholics must settle that between them. lam no Casuist. 0. "If brewers, &c., should be put on the right side of the gaol, where should gentlemen be put for whom the whole vocabulary of hell i 8 not strong enough ? " (Mr Houchin's had said that the whole vocabulary of hell had not terms strong enough to describe the evils of the liquor traffic.) As I have already said, I ain not responsible for Mr Houchin's utterances. But I will place alongside of thoin a few phrases of very eminent men. Mr Gladstone, not long ago in the House of Commons, declared that "if all the evils which war, petilence, and famine oombinod had inflicted on the world, they would not equal those which resulted from strong drink." In making this statement he was quoting, (though without acknowledgement), the words of Charles Burton, an eminent member of the Imperial Parliament, and a partner in one of England's greatest breweries. I suppose Mr Burton knew his own trade. Robert Hall, one of the most eminent non-conformists preachers who ever preached in England called strong drink, "distilled damnation." Mr Walters, a distinguished member of Parliament, and chief proprietor of the London "Times" called it "The devil in solution." Canon Wilbcvforcn denounced the gifts to the Church Irom brewers and distillers as "blood-stained money." .Lord Chancellor Brougham called the trade "An infernal traffic and a crime." Lord Chancellor Cairns called the public houses "Man-traps." Lord Chesterfield styled the liquor traffickers " Artists in human slaughter.', The London Times says thßt " It is impossible to find anything which stands so much loss to body, soul and estate as the public houses—a huge nuisanco and a misery ; it degrades, it ruins, it brutalizes a largo party of the people." Finally, yonr correspondent calls my attention to the text in the gospel of Mark, VII chapter 15 verse, in which our Savour says " that there is nothing from without a man that, entering into the man. can dofile him, but the things which come out of him, these are they which defile him." I must decline to engage in a theological discussion with your correspondent, but I would recommend him to compare the passage lie quotes with the parallel one in Math. XVch. 17v., ; where'our Saviour explains his saying to his disciples, who had failed like your correspondent, to apprehend his point. He tells them that it was ,not bodily defilement by physical dirt, against which he meant to caution then) ; but spiritual filthinessby sin generated in the heart; "evii thoughts, adulteries fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies ; there are the things what defile a man." Now, as we all know, these things are generated and promoted by the liquor traffic, and by it more than by all other causes put together. When our Lord cautioned his disciples against these souldestroying sins, he nover could have intended to encourage the " infernal traffic," of which they are the natural and inevitable outcome. The passage cited by your cox-respondent really refutes him. I was very sorry to pass Hamilton by without a visit, but a painful illness obliged me to hurry home ; I was very glad to hear from Mr Glover that you had a very successful meeting. I hnpe I shall find another opportunity of visiting your township. —I am, etc., William Fox.