This eBook is a reproduction produced by the National Library of New Zealand from source material that we believe has no known copyright. Additional physical and digital editions are available from the National Library of New Zealand.
EPUB ISBN: 978-0-908327-09-6
PDF ISBN: 978-0-908330-05-8
The original publication details are as follows:
Title: A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder'
Author: Wood, Robert
Published: New Zealand Alliance, Wellington, N.Z., 1911
National Library of New Zealand Catalogue Holdings Information
Page 1 of2
National Library of New Zealand Catalogue
Login to your account
Help | Exit
Find published items in the National Library
New Search My Searches My Records My Account
New keyword search
Go
Search History
Back to list of titles Previous 2 of 5 Next
Other title
By Contributor Published Description
Language Subject
Notes
A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder 1 /
by a Presbyterian Minister.
At head of title: Dr. Salmond's attack on the temperance reform attitude of the Evangelical Churches in New Zealand.
Wood, Robert. 1853-1931.
New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic.
Wellington [N.Z.]: New Zealand Alliance, [l9ll]
Book
23 p.; 21 cm.
English
Salmond, William, 1835-1917. Prohibition, a blunder.
Prohibition-New Zealand.
Temperance-New Zealand.
Liquor industry-New Zealand.
Cover title.
Written by the Rev. Robert Wood.
Display this record in.
Standard view
MARC view
Actions Request this item Print record Export record Email record Save record for later
The Alexander Turnbull Library, Pam Collection copy has letter from the New Zealand Alliance, giving the name of the author, tipped in at rear.
The Alexander Turnbull Library, New Zealand and Pacific Collection copy is bound with: Twenty-third annual report of the New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic by the direct vote of the people (formed 1886), 1908-1909 and 19 other titles, plus one broadsheet.
The General Lending Collection copy is bound with Professor Salmond’s blunder I by A.S. Adams. Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Alliance, 1911.
Holdings Information
Location Wellington, General Lending NZ Pacific (send request)
Cal! r.umber 363.41 ADA 1911 Multiple titles bound together
Number of items 1 (0 available)
Status Issued - Due on 22-04-2015
Note Multiple titles bound together
Location Alexander Turnbull, New Zealand Pacific (send request)
Call number Pam 1911 WOO 3456
Number of items 1
Status Available
Location Alexander Turnbull, New Zealand Pacific (send request)
Call number P 178.5 NZ. ALL 1909
Number of Items 1
status Available
link to this record
LIBRARY yr OF NEW ZEALAND
http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/vwebv/holdingslnfo7searchlcN26s2 l&recCount=2s&rec... 28/01/2015
Page 1 of 1
National Library Catalogue printable record page
Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa LIBRARY ' OF NEW ZEALAND
Printable view
Professor Salmond's blunder : prohibition, an effective social reform : a reply /
Author Adams, A. S. (Alexander Samuel), 1861-1937.
Contributor New Zealand Alliance for t ie Abolition of the Liquor Traffic.
Published Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Alliance, [l9ll]
Description 96 p. ; 22 cm.
The Alexander Turnbull Lib ary, New Zealand and Pacific Collection copy is
bound with: Twenty-third annual report of the New 2 .aland Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic by the direct vote of the people (formed 1886 , 1908-1909 and 19 other titles, plus one broadsheet.
The General Lending collection copy is bound with Tt: drink traffic, a blunder / A.S. Adams. 2nd ed. Wellington, N.Z. : Wright & Carman, 1911 A reply o 'Prohibition, a blunder 1 / R.A. Wood. Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Alliance, 1911 Is no license a success? / Jim Harris. Wellington, N.Z, : Wright and Carman, 1910 Results of no lice -e in Invercargill, 1906-1911 /J. Baird. Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic, 1911 'Twas won, twas well won, ’twas well 'twas won / Jabez Bridges Masterton, N.Z. : No-License in Masterton, 1911 Ashburton under no-license. Ashburton, N.Z ; Higgins, Printer, 1911 What about the revenue / A.R. Atkinson. Wellington, N.Z. : New Zealand Alliance, 1911 The revenue question in a nutshell. Wellington, N.Z. : Printed for the N.Z. Alliance by W.J. Lankshear, 1911? An address delivered at the Anglican Synod in the Diocese of We au / by R.B.S. Hammond. Wellington, N.Z. : W Lankshear, 1911 Should Christian vote again the liquor traffic /H. Curran. Wellington, N.Z. : W.J. Lankshear, 1911 The Roman Catholic Church and the liquor traffic. Wellington, N.Z. : Printed for the N.Z. Alliance by W.J. Lankshear, 1911 N.Z. doctors on alcohol / A.J. Orchard, J.P. Whetter, Wellington, N.Z. : W.J. Lankshear, 1911?
Subject Salmond, William, 1835-1917. Prohibition, a blunder. Prohibition.
Holdings Information
Location Wellington, New Zealand Pacific (send request)
Cbl' siumber 363.41 ADA 1911 Multiple titles bound together
Number of items 1 (0 available)
Status Issued - Due on 22-04-20 .5
Note Multiple titles bound together
Location Alexander Turnbull, New Zealand Pacific (send request)
Cal! number Pam 1911 ADA 3310
Number of items 1
Status Available
Location Alexander Turnbull, New Zealand Pacific (send request)
Cal! number P 178.5 NZ. ALL 1909
Number of items 1
Status Available
National Library of New Zealand Catalogue http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz
http://nlnzcat.natlib.govt.nz/vwebv/printßesults.do
30/01/2015
CONTENTS
1. Adams, A.S. Professor Salmond's blunder.
2. Atkinson, A.E. The drink traffic, a blunder.
3. Wood, R.A reply to "Prohibition, a blunder".
4. Harris, J. Is no license a success?
5. Baird, J. Results of no-license in Invercargill.
6. Bridges, J.'Twas won, 'twas well won, 'twas well 'twas won.
7. Ashburton under no-license.
8. Atkinson, A.R. What about the revenue?
9. New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic. The revenue question in a nutshell
10. Hammond, R.B.S. An address delivered at the Anglican synod in the diocese of Waiapu.
11. Curran, H. Should Christian vote against the liquor traffic?
12. New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic. The Roman Catholic Church and the liquor traffic.
13. Orchard, A.J. N.Z. doctors on alcohol.
Professor Salmond’s Blunder
PROHIBITION:
An Effective Social Reform.
X
A REPLY
... By ... A. 5. ADAMS, Dunedin.
" The World is divided into two classes: Those who go ahead and do something, and who sit still and inquire, 1 Why wasn’t it done the other way?’”—From Life.
“ The only freedom I care for is the freedom to do right.”— Professor Huxley.
PRICE - - - SIXPENCE.
Published by the NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE, Willis Street, Wellington.
PREFACE.
At the request of the editors of the Outlook and the Otago Daily Times, I wrote a short criticism of Professor Salmond’s pamphlet Prohibition a Blunder.” The criticism appeared in the limes of Friday, March 3, and in the Outlook of the seventh of the same month. As a result, numerous requests came to me that I should publish a fuller reply in some more permanent form, and, on consideration, it appeared that it might serve a useful purpose to do this. Professor Salmond’s pamphlet is the latest presentation of the arguments against prohibition, and his position and reputation in the community entitle his arguments to consideration and respect. From the press notices of the pamphlet, and the enthusiastic appreciation of the trade organ, one is justified in assuming that it presents the arguments in a manner acceptable to persons opposed to the movement for prohibition. And it is therefore fitting that the reply should be of a more serious character than the limits of a newspaper article allow. I have devoted some space to the consideration of the argument from Scripture, because this is a subject of perplexity to many people, who have not access to the authorities, and who may easily be misled by the confident assertions of a Doctor of Divinity.
lu criticising the Professor’s work, I have thought it right to give somewhat fuller quotations than is perhaps usual. This has been done to prevent, as far as possible, any suggestion of misrepresentation. Where italics appear in these quotations, they are generally my own. While exorcising the right of frank criticism, I have endeavoured to present the arguments fairly.
iv
PREFA CE.
In order not to burden the text unduly with references to authorities, these have been confined to such as seemed necessary to establish the argument. Citations from many eminent authorities are, however, given in the Appendix, and a summary of facts and statements, showing the conditions under no-license in New Zealand, will also be found there.
Alex. S. Adams.
Dunedin, April, 1911
Professor Salmond’s Blunder.
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
“ 117 m is there of them, the holiest, that less loves his rich canary at meals; though it be fetched from places that hazard the religion of them who fetch it, a/nd though it make his neighbour drunk out of the same tunnel They forbid not the use of that liquid merchandise, which, forbidden, would utterly remove a most loathsome sin, and not impair either the health or the refreshment of mankind, supplied many other ways.” — Milton, Tetrachordon.
In the early stages of the prohibition movement insistent demands were made upon its advocates for clear definition of their objects and the means by which those objects were to be attained. The principle of prohibition was challenged; the arguments of the new party were ridiculed; the evils alleged to flow from the use of alcoholic beverages were denied; the right of government or people to interfere with individual liberty was repudiated. A complete justification of the principles and policy of the new party was called for, and the advocates of reform promptly responded to this demand. It was only in accord with the fitness of things that, when the idea was new, prohibitionists should be put upon the defensive, and they cheerfully accepted that position. For over fifty years they have maintained a strenuous contest, covering the whole field of inquiry in relation to religion, medical science, philosophy, political economy, social economics, and law. Hundreds of books have been written on all the points of the controversy; legislatures, from the “ Mother of Parliaments” downwards, throughout the British Dominions, in the United States, and
6
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLVXDEP.
other countries, have approved, by resolution or by legislation, of the main principles of the reform ; the various sections of the Protestant churches, including the Church of England, have time and again, in their convocations and conventions, affirmed the same principles. Many high dignitaries of the Church of Rome have approved of those principles; and at the present time some fifty millions of the inhabitants of the United States of America, the British Dominions, and foreign countries have testified their acceptance of them, and are living under one or other form of prohibitory law, brought into operation by their own votes. In New Zealand, at the licensing poll of 1908, a substantial majority of the electors affirmed the principle of local option, and, so far as public opinion can be tested by any means short of a popular vote, these electors have indicated, at public meetings and in other ways, their acceptance of the main principles of the legislation of last year. It is now too late to ask the reform party to accept the defensive in argument. That belongs to the other side.
Concurrently with this contest, another and wider controversy has raged between the old and the new schools of political thought. A new science has been practically created, and lectureships upon Political Economy have been established in our universities. The old theories of the State have been revolutionised ; the centre of political power and authority has been changed ; the people have become vocal, have claimed and obtained the franchise, and are to-dav, in all English-speaking countries at least, recognised as the real source of power and authority. The days of the rotten boroughs have gone for ever, and the day of the people has dawned. The consent of the governed has become more than a mere form of words. Democracy, which James Russell Lowell says “ gives to every man the right to be his own oppressor,'’ has arrived. Henceforth, not Kings, and Thrones, but men count in the concerns of the State. The old political maxim, elaborated by Mill and that “ the best government is the one that governs least,” has given place to a conception of the state more in consonance with this great principle, and it has come to be recognised that the best government is that which responds most readily to the call of the people for legislation to improve social conditions in any and
I
P Ron I BIT 10 \ AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM
every direction. The two contests referred to above were in fact closely related.
E. J. Wheeler, in his book on Prohibition (1894), has an interesting section dealing with the function of government: In undertaking to prescribe the limits for the government of majorities, the social philosophers of the nineteenth century have divided, broadly speaking, into two schools. By one school, it is held that with the advance of civilisation and the moral progress of the individual, the need for civil law grows less and less, and restraints of government should become fewer and fewer. Their view is popularly expressed in the saying—‘ The best government is the one that governs least.’ ”
By the other school, it is held that the advance of, civilisation, the increasing density of population, and the ever-multiplying complexity of social and industrial forces render necessary more and more legislation, defining more and more minutely the metes and bounds of individual liberty and the conditions of industrial activity.”
The first-mentioned school declaimed against industrial laws, public schools, public charitable institutions, laws promoting the public health, public mail, telegraph, and railway services, etc. They exalted the individual and defended “individual liberty” against the encroachments of law. They challenged the 'propriety as well as the practicability of all prohibitory laws relating to the liquor traffic.”
Professor Salmond is a philosopher of this school. It is true that (at page 40 of the pamphlet) he declares himself a believer in the basic principles of democracy, but his real mental attitude is to be discovered in the developed argument of his thesis.
Ancient Arguments.
The arguments presented by Dr Salmond are mainly those which, stated in many different forms, were current in the later decades of last century. The pamphlet echoes the voices of the past. The antiquated objections, based upon interpretations of Scripture, the political principles of the old “ laissez-faire ” school; the philosophy of Aristotle and of Plato
8
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER
(whose prohibition of wine till a man reaches the age of forty years must, however, have been an unpalatable morsel) ; the long-ex-ploded doctrine that legal prohibition ought to be strictly confined to acts and usages which are inherently bad (which puts out of court three-fourths of all modern legislation); the wholesale condemnation of sumptuary laws, with a very wide interpretation of sumptuary in that connection; the bogey of the seven devils who will infallibly take possession of a community if drink be banished from it; the amazing confusion between the rights and duties of society and the rights and duties of the individual citizen; the “personal liberty” arguments; the anarchist contention that the law will not be (and by almost necessary inference ought not to be) obeyed; the contempt for recent inquiry and the conclusions of eminent scientists, sociologists, and penologists, with world reputations; the depreciation of statistics, etc. ; the scornful reprobation of his fallen brother, who has not been proof against the potent influence of alcohol—all are there, —and nothing more. But those last three words are perhaps unjust. There is the added flavour of a literary connoisseur, and a grace of diction which may go far to condone the absence of new argument and of logical sequence. There will doubtless be many who will mistake the professor’s elegance of style and didactic periods for convincing argument. Therein, indeed, lies the chief danger.
A Clever Assumption.
At the very outset Dr Salmond, by a somewhat astute and clever assumption, puts the whole case upon a false premiss. “In the following discussion,” he says, “it will be convenient to use the word ‘ wine ’ as the generic term for all alcoholic beverages, as it is certainly the typical form. This usage will involve us in less circumlocution, and is in harmony with the use and wont of scripture and of all languages.” This at once appropriates to the doctor’s use all the poetry and romance which clusters round the word “ wine,” the ruby wine, celebrated in song and story ; and is well calculated to enlist the sympathies and to captivate the judgment of literary epicures, as well as those whose
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM
9
means and tastes place at their disposal the sparkling champagne or rich old wines of curious vintage.
But while it may be perfectly true that this usage will involve us in less circumlocution in the verbal form used in the discussion, the assumption that it is in harmony with Scripture and of all languages is in direct conflict with the facte. It is not true of our own language. No one in common speech uses the word “ wine ” as a generic term embracing all alcoholic beverages. And so far as my knowledge goes, it is not true of any modern language.
Nothing is clearer than the fact that the word “ wine ” in the Old and New Testament is not, and cannot be, " a generic term for all (modern) alcoholic beverages,” and it is a grave misuse of terms so to represent it. Of, the alcoholic beverages now in use, only a very few answer to the description of the fermented wines of scripture. The art of distillation was not known until centuries after the sacred records were closed, and the spirits and fortified wines so largely consumed now were also unknown. The alcoholic wines in use prior to the discovery of distillation were produced by ordinary fermentation alone. All students of the question also know that a large part of the so-called wines of to-day are manufactured by the aid of chemicals.* If, therefore, it could be established that the Bible commends the use of intoxicating wines in any circumstances, it should have been clear to the professor that these commendations could not be applied to whisky, brandy, or absinthe, or to port wine and the other commercial wines of
( ) The markets of the world are incredibly flooded with imitations, adulterations, and chemical tiade mixtures (particularly in wines), so much SO that even eminent wine merchants have declared the impossibility of he large majority of drinkers, especially outside the countries of their manufacture ever tasting even tolerably pure liquor.” Dr O’Gorman in i a ue 0f AJcohol m Health ’’ (a paper read before the British Medical Association,, 1900,. page 5).
A great part otf the wine of France and Germany has ceased to be he juice of the grape at all.” “It is hardly possible 'to obtain a sample firSt *“ nd '”~ Dr EnCycl Brit ’ 9th
that ‘At .11, 1895) ’ the Dail y Telegraph said that At east three-tourths of the ordinary French wines we drink are either wholly artificial, or, at best, avowedly ‘faked,’ and that half of the remaining fourth is open to similar suspicion.”
21
PIiOFESSOIt SALMOND’S BLUNVEh
to-day. Even in New Zealand wine manufacturers may fortify their wines with distilled spirits up to 40 per cent. Such of the wines of Palestine as were intoxicating would answer to the light natural wines of Italy or France. Dean Farrar (author of “ The Life of Christ,” “ The Life of Paul,” etc., one of the greatest authorities on such a question) says: —“ Observe that in ancient days and eastern countries, there was not a thousandth part of the necessity which now exists for these warnings. The wines of ancient days were mildness itself compared with the flaming, burning intensity of ardent spirits. Distillation was unknown, and the results of drunkenness which the ancients witnessed bore no comparison with the creeping horror of such dehumanisation as you may see in the slums of any great city. . . . The comparatively harmless, pure, fermented, and sometimes uufermented juice of the grape was drunk, - not habitually by the mass of the people, but only on rare and festive occasions, and was invariably taken with very large infusions of water.” And again, “It is not recorded that Christ ever saw a drunken man.”
The Argument from Scripture.
When one turns to the examination of the Professor’s first affirmation, the essential unfairness of his use of the word “ wine ” immediately appears. Here is the affirmation:
“ The thought and sentiment prevalent in the prohibition camp in regard to wine and its use is at variance with that which pervades the Old and New Testaments."
Substitute “whisky” or “brandy” for “wine” in this sentence, and the affirmation becomes at once absurd and meaningless.
Even to the superficial reader of the sacred writings, it must be evident that two kinds of wine are spoken of throughout those writings. Can any one doubt, for instance, that there is a difference between the wine referred to in Judges ix: 13, which “ Cheereth God and man,” and the wine spoken of, in Deut. xxxii: 33, as “the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps'!”
And, although much has been said by scholars on both sides of this question, there seems ample ground for the opinion that
PROHIBIT!O.\ J.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
22
in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament distinct words are used to indicate unfermented wine and wine which intoxicates.* There can be no reasonable doubt that much of the wine of Palestine and, indeed, much of the wine in use in all countries of the world up to a date centuries after Christ, was not fermented. The word is used in Scripture in connections which often forbid the possibility of any other meaning. One would reasonably have expected Dr Salmond to have noted this fact. On the contrary, he urges that the New Testament contains no injunction against the use of alcoholic beverages, and yet that drunkenness was very prevalent in Judea in the Saviour’s time. “We know,” he says, •' that drunkenness was very prevalent.” Against this confident assertion, for which he gives no authority, may be placed a further quotation from Dean Farrar:—“Palestine was in the days of Christ a country almost absolutely free from intemperance.” Professor David Smith, D.D., in “ The Days of His Flesh ” (page 56, note 3), says:— 'ln those days at any rate the Jews were a temperate people.”
Aristotle (in his “ Meteorologica ” iv: 9) says of the sweet wine of his day, that it did not intoxicate. Athenseus (Banquet ii: 24) makes a similar statement. Josephus, in his paraphrase of Joseph’s interpretation of the butler’s dream, repeatedly calls the grape juice (fresh from the grapes into the cup) trine. “He (the butler) therefore said that in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine, large already and ready for gathering, and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had drained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink. Joseph let him know that God bestows the fruit of the vine upon men for good ; which wine is poured out to him. . . . Thou sayest that thou didst squeeze this wine from three clusters of grapes with thine hands,” etc.— Jos. Ant. Chap. v.
Columella, who lived in apostolic days, gives instructions on methods of keeping wine unfermented. St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century A.D.) quotes Aristotle, and says that the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper " can be fulfilled by the juice of ripe grapes.”
(*) See an interesting article in appendix p, 96
23
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER
There is a whole library of literature on this subject with which Dr Salmond would appear to be unacquainted. Ho competent scholar can, in the discussion of the present question, fairly ignore the results of recent investigations into the subject of the wines of the Bible, and the Professor, in doing this, is only adding to the confusion in the minds of those whom he represents as already in a state of mental obfuscation, under the influence of the “ inertia of, common sense,” “ conscious of confusions in the argument although unable to disentagle them.”
The statement of the facts would have destroyed much, if not the whole, of the force of the Professor’s argument, but would at least have saved him from the charge of placing the Lord Jesus Christ amongst the free drinkers of alcoholic beverages!
Of the Lord Jesus Christ, Dr Salmond says:—
The Saviour and Alcohol.
We read that He even ate and drank with such wholesome simplicity of appetite that malice found occasion to charge Him with being fonder of delicate food and of good wine than was quite seemly. The charge could have had no point unless the wine were fermented, for we could hardly bring a moral accusation against a man for being too fond of drinking milk or raspberry vinegar.”
This may be humorous, but it is humour out of place. Would the Professor say that the food also must have been fermented, since " We could hardly bring a moral accusation against a man for being too fond ” of roast beef and plum pudding 1 The accusation was that he was a man “ gluttonous and a wine-bibber.” It was prompted by malice, and the only foundation for it was, in the language of our Saviour, that the Son of Man came eating and drinking” (Matthew xi: 19). Professor Salmond unwarrantably extends this to mean that the Son of Man indulged In alcoholic wines to such an extent as to give occasion for the malicious charge. More than that! He is even bold enough t, O assert that “lie knew that His persona/ habits gave occasion
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
24
to the accusation, bat He altered them in no respect on that account ”/
" Idle we have no difficulty in repelling this calumny against the Saviour, there is an interesting fact which it is well to note. A slander, intended to lower His reputation among the people, as this undoubtedly was, could have no force at all among a people who looked upon drinking with toleration. Only persons who practised or admired abstinence could have reproached Christ with being a wine-bibber. We have thus in the very fact of the slander, evidence that the people were not given to intemperance. There is of course no more truth in this slander than in that other from the same source. “He hath a devil, and is mad.” Dean Fitchett, of All Saints’, Dunedin, in a letter to the Otago Daily Times,' November 17, 1901, said: "No one supposes that the saying of Christ's enemies that he was a ' glutton and a wine-bibber ’ contained any more truth than that other saying of the same persons that He had a devil, and was mad.”
Dealing with the miracle of Cana, the Professor assumes that the wine was alcoholic, but this is matter of controversy, and much has been written on the other side by eminent men. The fact vouched for by Dean Farrar and many others, that unfermented wine was in common use, goes very far to establish the contrary opinion. To hold that the Saviour made 126 gallons of alcoholic wine for the use of persons who had already “ well drunk ” is to come \ery close to a charge of encouraging drinking to excess. Certainly the onus is on him who asserts it. The writings of Dr Norman Kerr, and many others, furnish a body of authority which cannot fail to impress anyone not wedded to pre-conceived opinions.
Referring to the institution of the Lord’s Supper, the Professor says: He ordained that His disciples should eat bread and drink wine This is a perversion of the text. “ Wine ”is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament in relation to the Lord’s Supper. The terms used are “ cup” and “ fruit of the vine,” and this might well be, and commonly was, and is now, used in the unfermented condition. The same expression “ fruit of the vine,” as has been already shown, is used by Josephus to describe the “ wine ” which Pharoah took from his butler, pressed into the cup from the fresh
25
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLVXUER.
clusters of grapes. Moreover, it was Passover time, when leaven and ferment were not generally used.
Of that sublime scene in the upper room we read : “ And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: ‘ Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Does it not shock the Christian conscience to read this in the Professor’s pamphlet:—“ Has it ever occurred to prohibitionists to substitute in Bible texts their synonyms for wine ? For example— ‘ Eat of this bread and drink of this irritant narcotic poison ?’ ” (Pamphlet, page 15). To such devices is the opponent of prohibition driven in support of his argument!
Dean Farrar’s emphatic statement that ' Palestine was in the days of Christ a country almost absolutely free from intemperance ” will be accepted by many as conclusive. His scholarship stands unquestioned, and his special field of inquiry as a student and writer furnished exceptional opportunities for ascertaining the facts. And Professor Smith’s endorsement, quoted above, places two of the most eminent English writers on the life and times of Christ in agreement as to the fact. The argument of the Professor on this point is childish in its simplicity. Answering the assumed argument of the prohibitionist that “ The Christ of the twentieth century would have been an abstainer and a prohibitionist whatever may be said of the Christ of the first century,” he says (page 17): “We have not the facts that would enable us to compare the prevalence of drunkenness in Judea with its prevalence in England or New Zealand. We know, however, that drunkenness was very prevalent, for the denunciations of it and warnings against it in the Old and New Testaments are many and urgent; although the modern remedies are never once suggested.” In support of this he gives quotations from the old prophets. Now the canon of the Old Testament was closed in or about the year 397 b.c. What possible light can the denunciations in Isaiah, who lived about 700 b.c., or in Hosca (750 b.c.), throw upon the prevalence of drunkenness in Judea in the time of Christ '
Palestine and the Jews.
PROHIBITION' AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
26
II there aie similar denunciations in the New Testament, why does not the Professor quote them? They do not exist. The only i eference to the New Testament which Dr Salmond gives in support of his statement is, “ it appears that some of the Corinthian converts became drunk at the congregational love-feast.” But Corinth is not, and never was, in Judea, but in Greece. The incident has no bearing whatever on the point under discussion. There is reason, too, for the opinion that this free rendering of the passage (1 Cor. xi: 21) is opposed to the best scholarship, and that the true rendering is one is hungry, but another is over-filled—-gorged." The Professor's exposition is prima facie improbable, though I am aware that it is supported by some scholars.
But the professor continues (page 17):
It is manifest that the moral situation then (in the time of Christ and Paul) cannot have been so very different from what it is now. How is it that our modern so facile remedies never suggested themselves to prophets and apostles, who were quite well aware of the ravages of intemperance, and who abhorred it vehemently 1”
The answer is so exceedingly simple that one is mildly surprised at the question. The whole situation, moral and political, is radically different. The modern remedies were wholly impossible. hatever may be the facts as to ” the ravages of intemperance in the days of the prophets and apostles,” it was obviously impossible in the days of government by despotism, to appeal to the people, who had no votes, to vote out a traffic which did not exist. For it is certain—
(1) That in those days the people had no voice in the government or the making of laws.
(2) That there was no such thing in existence as a wealthy, organised trade in intoxicating liquor.
(3) As already shown, the evil was not of the same character as it is in this twentieth century.
To-day the responsibility, moral and political, rests upon the -people, and to the people accordingly prohibitionists appeal. Such an appeal in apostolic times would have been the act of a lunatic.
16
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER.
Does Dr Salmond suggest that in the old world there was ever so terrible an agency for educating the people in the school of intemperance and its attendant vices as the modern liquor trade, with its vast wealth and organisation, its ruthless methods, and greed of gain, and political power ? If not, and there certainly was not, then what part, if any, is he prepared to admit is now played by that trade in creating and increasing the demand for alcoholic beverages 2 What part in the sum of evils which all men deplore ? Surely it must be evident to the dullest understanding that the social and political conditions are vastly different under present circumstances, and that the menace to law and order, and to the- welfare of the people is immeasurably greater in these times than ever before in the world’s history. In presence of so vast an organisation, whose sole business and profit it is to make men drink, drink, drink, it is idle to prose away about Palestine and the conditions there 1900 years ago.
Dr Salmond does not shrink from saying that Christ “ counted wine ” (the generic term!) "among the good gifts of God.” This, of course, may well be true of that innocent, unfermented wine which was in use in His day, and there need be no quarrel with that. It is when the statement is made in relation to the indiscriminate use of modern intoxicating liquors as common beverages that prohibitionists protest with sound reason. Assume, if you will, that alcohol is one of the good gifts of God. So is mineral oil, and we use it for its appropriate purposes as a luminant, and for the development of energy. But we do not drink it because it is one of God’s good gifts. Alcohol fills a similar place. It is good for like uses with mineral oil, and, probably in the near future, will be largely used for many industrial purposes as a substitute for oil. Shall we, therefore, drink it?
The “ Good Creature of Cod."
There is no warrant for the assertion of Dr Salmond that Christ “ counted wine ” (in the sense in which he uses that word) “ among the good gifts of God.” The Professor does not know the lengths to which those wicked prohibitionists will go on this phase of the question ! He tells us (page 14) ; “ They dare not
PBOHIUITIOS AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
28
deny that the Saviour used wine.” That is true, but they do deny that the Saviour used the liquor known and commonly drunk as wine to-day, and they deny that He ever saw fortified wine, or brandy, whisky, etc. And they say that, with all the facts with reference to our modern alcoholic beverages so obvious and so easily ascertainable, it is inexcusable in a Doctor of Divinity and Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy, to rest in a condition of such uncertain knowledge as renders it possible for him to honestly assert and maintain the contrary.
They go further, and say that in the light of the scientific teaching of the twentieth century upon this question (of which more will be said later), it is a reflection upon the goodness of God, and an evidence of alarming mental blindness, for any teacher of men to say that modern alcoholic beverages are as such a good gift from the hands of the Father of Mercies. The evidence from science of the evil effects of the use (not abuse, in the sense of the common idea of excessive indulgence) of alcoholic drinks—that alcohol is one of the few deadly racial poisons,” has attained such volume and authority as almost to compel belief. There is no getting away from this—alcohol is a poison, and it does the work of a poison in the human organism in proportion to the amount taken and the condition of the person taking it.
Slavery was defended in the old days on the ground that it was a divine institution. Dr Salmond assures us that slavery is “ an outrage upon the fundamental rights of men,” and all men agree with him in that. But it took long years of argument and persuasion, and a war in which over half a million lives were sacrificed, to drive the great truth home. I venture to predict that, in days coming swiftly, men will as honestly, and with as good reason, abhor the suggestion that our alcohol as a beverage is a divine institution —a good gift of God—as they now abhor the idea of slavery. It is a most curious and interesting fact that Dr Salmond is able, on the one hand, to agree that the system of slavery is an outrage which must be prohibited (page 19), although no protest against it is found in the New Testament, and that he can also, on the other hand, insist that the traffic in liquor must not be prohibited, because no protest against it is to be found in
IS
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLVXDER.
the Jvew Testament. One would much appreciate the Professor’s explanation of this psychological marvel.
The Professor gives one other example of the substitution test. “What,” he asks, “ shall we make of this sentence: ‘ The people of New Zealand have it now in their power forever to exclude that maddening narcotic poison unless it be imported for the uses of religion in connection with the Church of God ’?” “ These last sentences,” he tells us, “to some may seem a sort of blasphemous parody,” and he is right, but with strange perversity he places the blame of this on the shoulders of the prohibitionists! It would have been more candid to accept the blame and to admit that the use of alcoholic wine bas already been largely discontinued in the churches, and that the exception is solely to provide for the religious observances of the sections of the Christian Church which have not made this change. The exception is perfectly well understood. Prohibitionists will not be parties to any action which will interfere with the religious convictions of any section of the community. Some sections of the community do regard the use of fermented wine in the observance of the communion service as a religious duty. Prohibitionists will doubtless continue their efforts to convince them that this is an erroneous view, but they will always insist that opportunity shall be given for all to follow the dictates of their own consciences in the matter. Surely this will commend itself to all unprejudiced persons.
Another Substitution.
The Argument from History.
Dr Salmond’s second point is
“ History is stored with exemplary lessons of instruction and of warning. As we scan its course we note that whenever virtue and religion have achieved power, and, fired with zeal, have become legislators, manipulating the framework of society in favour of their ideals, the results have been unfavourable. The fault does not lie in the virtue and piety, but in certain blunders and over-
/ ROII t BITIOS AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
19
sights into which their representatives are prone to slide.”
Now, the curious thing about this point is, that if it is to prove of any value in the argument, it must appear that in relation to law and order and good government, virtue and religion are, in the opinion of the Professor, to be looked upon with suspicion and distrust, at any rate when “ fired with zeal.” ' Whenever virtue and religion have achieved power, and, fired with zeal, have become legislators, manipulating the framework of society in favour of their ideals, the results have been unfavourable.” Virtue must at least be allied to vice, and religion to irreligion, before it will be safe to entrust them with the difficult task of legislation—for a society composed of sinful men. How much vice must be added to virtue in the model legislator, and how. much religion will prove a safe practice tor him ? The Professor does not say. The one thing of which, in this Christian age, we must beware, is virtue, hand in hand with religion, and fired with zeal (not alcoholic). The fault,!' says he, “ does not lie in the virtue and piety, but in certain blunders and oversights into which their representatives are prone to slide. But is it the virtue, or the piety, or both, which induces this proneness “to slide” ? If either, then the fault does, after all, lie with the virtue, or the piety, or both. If neither, then the fault is in the men and in the men alone.
But if this is so, where is the point ? It appears that what the Professor really means to say is, that some men, though virtuous and pious, have not sufficient judgment or discretion to perform the office of legislators. Is that all ? If so, then the remedy is, not to give up social reform, but to pursue it with judgment and discretion, paying due heed to the warnings of the past. If not, then, to repeat the argument, the fault must be in the virtue, or the piety, or in both. Since the Professor expressly repudiates this, we may safely conclude that the defects of the men who have, in certain past stages of history, combined virtue and piety with the possession of political power as legislators, are alone responsible for the failure of their schemes.
20
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLONDER
The Illustrations.
The first “ lesson ” is given in these terms:
“ From the Christians of the early centuries,” Dr Salmond says, “ there arose a great protest against sexual vice, as in the middle of the last century there arose a great protest against the drink-sodden habits of the population. On the one hand, they invented a new form of virtue never before known among men —namely, celibacy and virginity, and they called it Chastity; and, on the other hand, they invented the new virtue of Total Abstinence, and called it Temperance. . . Will the new and false notion of Temperance work out any better than the new and false notion of Chastity did 1 There is an arresting parallelism between the two cases, creative of grave suspicion. It is always ominous when men take it on themselves to create artificial virtues and call them falsely with the wrong name.”
The “blunder” here in the early Christians was monasticism. But that was not legislation, nor was it compulsory. The men who initiated the practice, practised it as individuals, and never at any stage of history sought to impose it as a law upon society. In course of time, monasticism became the rule of, certain religious orders, and certain teaching which grew up in relation to it has been repudiated by every State. But it never was, and never was intended to be, a rule for society. There is nothing here to point a moral against the political proposals of the prohibitionists. But that is not really the object of the Professor in dragging monasticism into the discussion.
Total Abstinence.
The object is to discredit the appeal for total abstinence—“the new and false notion of temperance ” —between which and monasticism there is an “ arresting parallelism ”! Dr Salmond thus arraigns the practice of total abstinence as being as morally indefensible as monasticism. This would be regarded as ludicrous but for the standing of the author. Monasticism is contrary to nature. Its logical end is race suicide. Were its
PROHIRITIOX AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
32
practice to become universal, the human race would end with the present generation. On the other hand, alcohol is itself a product of decay, and its use as a beverage is unnatural. Alcoholic beverages are made by inducing the process of decay and then arresting it. Nature, if allowed to complete her work, would turn the ferment into vinegar, which would set the teeth on edge. Abstinence from alcoholic beverages is as natural for man as is abstinence from prussic acid or any other poisonous product. Where, then, is the ' arresting parallelism ” between these two cases ? The suggestion is too absurd for serious consideration.
The Professor’s “ history,” too, is somewhat faulty. He places the origin of the teaching and practice of total abstinence in the middle of last century. This is a curious “ blunder” for a Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy! If the testimony of Baronius is to be accepted (and his authority is at least equal to that of Dr Salmond), there is every ground to believe that total abstinence from alcoholic wine was the common practice of the early Christians, and “ the practice of abstinence was so widespread amongst Christians, and prized so much, that in some cases scandal was given if a Christian was seen to depart from it.” The passage in the original Latin will be found in Volume 111 of Dr F. R. Lees’s Select Works (page 86), and a report of a sermon by Cardinal Manning, in which he gives the above and other quotations, will be found in the preface to the same volume.
The teaching and practice of this " new and false ” doctrine ■was very old before the days of Christ. The Old Testament gives many instances of it, and there are many passages in Grecian literature which approve it. The incomparable Demosthenes was a water drinker. Pindar says that “ water is best,” etc.
Side by side with the Professors condemnation of total abstinence may be placed his attitude toward the victim of drink, who, he suggests, should be made to feel that he is “ our special abhorrence.” I recollect on one occasion, in a conversation, one of our brewers said to a prohibitionist: “ I hate the drunkard as much as you do.” The prohibitionist replied: ' That remark fairly defines the difference between us. You hate the drunkard;
*2*2
PROFESSOIt SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
I hate the drunkard-maker. It is the liquor that makes the drunkard.” The injunction of Christ is, “Love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Ecclesiasticism and Ultra-Puritanism.
The second lesson of “ instruction and warning from history,” to which Dr Salmond invites our attention, is the Genevan experiment by Calvin. “ The conscience of saintly men . . imposed a law, with legal sanction, covering all life: and the transgressions of the code of virtue and piety became punishable offences and crimes.”
The experiment did not succeed, and it did not deserve to succeed. It sought to coerce men in matters of conscience and religion. It was a tyranny of clericalism. No need to waste time over it.
The Professor’s third “ lesson ” is from Cromwell’s day. It was a " blunder ’ of the same character as that of Calvin. Inestimable good resulted to. England from the legislation of Cromwell, but " the body of political simpletons ” which formed his Parliament did not make much headway. Cromwell was “ now more troubled with the fool than with the knave,” —a not uncommon difficulty in the way of reformers—and much of his work was rendered of no effect. The extraordinary conclusion of Dr Salmond, from these and similar historical references, is “ effective reforms were never yet achieved by mere destruction and prohibition : all permanent moral improvement must be spontaneous.” Here we have the assumption that “ effective reforms ” are necessarily of a “ moral ” nature, which is absurd. But it would serve no good purpose to pursue the Professor through the bewildering mazes of his historical “ lessons.” The one fact which is clear about them all is that they have no bearing upon the matter of debate, and only serve to obscure counsel. Laws regulating piety, and sumptuary laws, are not in the same plane with the proposals for the abolition of the liquor traffic. Prohibition is not a sumptuary law, though all sumptuary laws are prohibitions, as, indeed, are all laws, expressly or implicitly.
PROHIBITION' -4.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
34
Failure of Past Legislation.
On page 25 of the pamphlet we are told that "the moral legislation of the past must have enwrapped serious errors, since it proved so vain and has been nearly all swept away." Very well, then why does the Professor cling so passionately to the liquor licensing legislation of the past? Was that "moral” legislation? If not, how can it be said that prohibition, the principle of which is contained in every license law, is to be placed in a different category? We do well to learn from the failures of the past. Why does not the Professor point out some of those failures in liquor legislation ? Because it is plain that to do so would be to strengthen the demand for radical change. They have failed precisely where they have not enforced prohibition. Surely no more dismal story of failure could be imagined that that which is written in lurid letters over the history of centuries of effort to curb and keep within bounds the lawless traffic, which to-day is a more serious menace to the life and prosperity of the nations than ever before in the history of our race. There is no need to go to prohibition literature for testimony of this. Lord Rosebery, referring to the evils of drink, and of the trade in drink, in one of his great speeches, said; “ If the State does not soon control the liquor traffic, the liquor traffic will control the State.” Statesmen have uttered their warnings; philanthropists have worn their lives out in earnest work ; voluntary societies have organised and worked for two generations : preachers have declaimed ; politicians have sought for means to check the deadly evil—all to be met with defeat at the hands of a trade entrenched behind the law. The prohibition movement is modern. It is not cursed by centuries of failure. It holds the field in the present day, and, with the tide of public opinion flowing steadily in its favour, it may succeed. Why not try it now ?
• Human Sin and Folly.”
We are treated to the usual sophistries when the Professor comes to deal with the question of the evils which flow from the use of alcoholic beverages, and this forms the theme of his third argument—
35
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER
“ One of the main lines of argument for prohibition consists in the recounting of the numerous and vast evils which result from the excessive use of wine, and the constant danger there is of such excess. Now, no one will for a moment deny that, through human sin and folly, wine is the occasion of much misery. . Its use is not necessarily a habit of depravity, nor any sign of it.”
Will it satisfy Dr Salmond to have it stated, on the word of a prohibitionist, that no one who speaks with any authority says that "the use of wine is necessarily a habit of depravity?” It is really very embarrassing to find a writer, who sets up as a public guide, constantly misapprehending the basis and raison d’etre of the movement he is opposing, and the principles upon which it is based. To alter slightly his own language, “it is difficult to resist the impression that such statements are made in order to influence the judgment by the impression they are fitted to make.” That the use of alcoholic liquors is always injurious, is a statement supported by the highest medical authority,* but so far as the consequences of that use can be borne alone by the individual indulging in it, prohibitionists have nothing to say. The depravity is exhibited when one is found to argue for the personal right to have legalised facilities provided for him, by which he can purchase these liquors at will, in spite of the appalling evils which are admitted and which are occasioned by those very facilities. When a teacher of moral philosophy is found in this century claiming, on the authority of Scripture, the like reasonable facilities for purchasing alcoholic liquors which he is entitled to for purchasing bread (page 14), it is time to protest in emphatic language. “ Human sin and folly ” may be the main cause of the grosser evils associated with the traffic, but no man can dissociate himself from his fellows, and, thrusting aside those evils by a sweeping condemnation of the victims, claim to go on his selfish way. The State has a paramount right and duty to protect itself and its citizens even
*) Appendix pp. 92-95.
PROHIBITIOS .4.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
36
from the consequences of “ human sin and folly.” Indeed, were it not for that same element, there would be but little need for legislation at all.
Fools or Weaklings.
The pamphlet is full of plausible fallacies. Take the following question on page 28 as an illustration: ' Must the millions of honest, stalwart men be thrust aside, all for the problematical benefit of a relatively small number of fools or weaklings, with a morbid streak in
The youngest neophyte in prohibition could pick holes in this wise interrogation. To begin with, it begs the whole question at issue. If it correctly stated the problem, that problem would not be difficult of solution. It does not correctly state the question, however, but is only evidence of the inability of the propounder of it, so evident throughout the argument, to appreciate the social and political aspect of this movement. Stated fairly, the proposition demanding answer from the people stands in much more reasonable terms. The Professor’s question assumes that the people whose lives are cursed by drink are confined to the number of excessive drinkers, and to degenerates. But everybody knows that many of the ablest and most capable men are among the victims of the drink habit, and that the real pressure of the drink evil falls most heavily, not on the drinkers, but upon their wives and children, and other relatives and friends, and, in a larger sense, upon the whole community. We do not hold with the doubtful method of arguing from the particular to the general —which constructs a general conclusion from a single instance. But examples which are typical furnish legitimate bases for such conclusions. Here is one such :
A young couple were married and settled down in a happy home within a few miles of the city of Dunedin, less than twenty years ago. The man was an industrious, honest workman, and the wife a winsome young woman of prepossessing appearance. Both were abstainers. The home was happy for a time. A child was born. The friends of the young mother advised her to take
37
PROFESSOR SALMON OS BLUNDER
alcoholic liquor—a prescription which has worked woe to many a home. She did so. Mark the sequel. She learned to like the liquor, and the liking increased until it dominated every sense. The poor woman (fool or weakling, Dr Salmond ?) fell into file lowest depths. More children were born. The woman came repeatedly before the Police Court for drunkenness and allied misconduct. On the occasion of her fifty-seventh conviction in the Dunedin Police Court the kindly magistrate offered her a last chance if she would sign the total abstinence pledge. She burst into tears, and, with head bowed upon her arms, sobbed out: “ It’s of no use, I could not keep it.” The home of early years was gone. Her four children were committed to a public institution ; her husband was a heart-broken wanderer. Some of the children have since graduated in crime in this city. I could fill a book with records of similar cases, culled from this Christian city, and there is not a Police Court in all our large centres the records of which would not disclose case after case of similar character. Who are the “ fools or weaklings ” in these cases, and upon whom do the dire consequences fall ?
“Oh, sit you down, and I will wring your heart;
And so I shall, if damned custom hath not brazed it so,
To make it proof and bulwark against sense!”
The case of the unhappy woman given above shows in a very clear light the far-reaching consequences of the drink habit. The woman herself lost irretrievably; the husband broken and ruined: the home destroyed; the children deprived of their birthright and condemned to a life of criminality and shame; the State burdened with the support of the woman and children ; society subjected bo a demoralising influence which is the fatally certain result of the drunkenness of women. In face of examples like this, is it not the merest bathos to discuss the problem as a contest between the right of “ honest, stalwart men ” to have facilities to drink guaranteed them on the one hand, and the benefit of “ fools or weaklings with a morbid streak in their blood and brain ” on the other ?
I‘HOHIUITIOX -I.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL HEFOBiI.
38
A Brutal Assault Upon the Feelings.
Yet what does Dr Salmond say He anticipates the citation of such cases, and concludes that it is only the argument for prohibition stated anew in a form which converts it into what Stevenson calls a “ bruta assault upon the feelings,” and “ when the feelings are aroused it is difficult for cool argument to get a hearing!” Cool argument, forsooth 1 It was quite possible for a Nero to fiddle while the Imperial City was in flames, and the philosopher might even find it irksome to be troubled with the task of rescuing these unhappy ” fools or weaklings,” but the heart of the people is sound, and will ever respond to the cry of the weak and helpless. And the modern political economist will see, in the facts of just such cases, an urgent call for wise measures of legislation, and for social effort to put an end to these tragedies of life. The quotation from Kant, In matters which concern all men without distinction . . . the highest philosophy can achieve no more than that guidance which Nature has vouchsafed to the meanest understanding,” is one for which we owe the Professor much thanks. At one stroke it reduces all his philosophy to the level of the conclusions of the meanest understanding ” upon this matter. Let us get the fact » home to the minds of the people, and we shall find more profit in the untutored wisdom of the multitude than in all the dreary tomes of moral philosophy.
But to-day there is no occasion to rely exclusively, or mainly, upon the guidance of Nature. The student with open mind can find ready to his hand an array of authority upon every phase of the drink evil, and upon every aspect of the social and political side of the subject, abundantly sufficient to satisfy his reason and convince his understanding.
Contempt of Authority.
Dealing with the evidence as to the relation of drink to disease, misery, lunacy, crime, etc., collected from leading alienists, penologists, and scientists, the Professor says ■ the statements are loos© and exaggerated/’ But the Professor is no authority on this, and one may well pause before
•2S
PROFESSOR SALMON O'B BLUNDER
accepting his ipse dixit—say, on crime—in preference to the considered Judgment of the late Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and other equally eminent jurists, or on the nature and effects of alcohol, in preference to the expert opinions of Sir Victor Horsley, Sir Frederick Treves, Sir B. W. Richardson, and a host of other medical experts ; or on the social results flowing from the traffic, in preference to the opinion of General Booth, Charles Booth, of London, and other investigators. Even a Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy may not unreasonably expect that the results of long experiment, observation, and research, by the leading authorities of the world on these questions, are not to be conjured away or " attenuated into nothingness ” with a wave of his hand and the phrase, “ the statements are loose and exaggerated.” Such an attitude betrays an imperfect sense of proportion, to say the least. The armchair philosopher does not usually show to advantage when dealing with practical questions, and the genial Professor is of. that order. In dealing with these “ loose and exaggerated ” statements he does not even betray any knowledge of the fact that they are really the statements of men of unquestioned position and authority. It may be as well to refer to a few of these :
It was Charles Booth, the eminent investigator, who said, in “ Pauperism and the Endowment of. Old Age ”; “Of drink ” (not drunkenness!) “in all its combinations, adding to every trouble, undermining every effort after good, destroying the home . the stories tell enough. . . Drink must therefore be accounted the most prolific of all the causes, and it is the least necessary!” It was Cardinal Vaughan who said that 60,000 persons a year perish through drink (in England), and the statement was based upon a careful calculation by William Hoyle.
Sir James Hannen, England’s most experienced Divorce Court judge, said: “ Seventy-five per cent, of the divorce cases that come before me in the Divorce Court originate in drinking." Mr Justice Hawkins (Lord Brampton) said: “Every day I live, and the more I think of the matter, the more firmly do I come to the conclusion that the root of almost all crime is drink,” Lord Chief Justice Coleridge said frequently that “ if England
PROHIBITION J.V EFFECT IVK SOCIAL REFORM.
40
could be made sober, three-fourths of her gaols could be closed
Dr. O’Gorman, in his address, says : —“ Its (alcohol’s) action, as classified by all chemists and toxicologists, is really that of a narcotic-irritant poison.”—Page 51.
The editor of the Otago Daily Times said (Bth November, 1909): Even scientists begin to emphasise the fact that alcohol is one of the few deadly racial poisons transmissible from generation to generation,” and so on.
W. E. Gladstone.
The value of the Professor's criticism of such statements may be judged by one example. Referring to Mr Gladstone, he
' None of all these amazing deliverances is more frequently quoted than Gladstone’s to the effect that drunkenness causes more misery than war, pestilence, and famine'.” And asking, “ Can it be sol” proceeds to argue that, because in certain periods, from Julius Caesar’s day to the day of the Black Death in Europe a large number of people were slain in war or died of disease, Mr Gladstone’s statement is an “ amazing deliverance,” and incredible ! Now, it is to be noted (1) that Gladstone’s statement is not correctly quoted, and that (2) it refers to his own generation and to Britain. The statement was made in the House of Commons on March 5, 1880: “It has been said that greater calamities are inflicted on mankind by intemperance than by the three great historic scourges of war, pestilence, and famine ; that is true for us, and it is the measure of our discredit and disgrace.” He would be a bold man who would set out to prove that the statement was not then, or is not now, true of all Europe and every English-speaking country in the world.
The source of Mr Gladstone’s quotation is probably Dr Stephen Hales, D.D., F.R.S., who, in his “ Friendly Admonition to Drinkers of Brandy, etc.” (published in 1734), says: “Of all the miseries and plagues that unhappy man has been incident to, none was ever so effectually destructive as this, not even those three sore judgments of war, pestilence, or famine, all of which, after raging for some time, cease. But this evil spirit is an unrelenting, merciless enemy, that threatens endless destruction from
SO
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
generation to generation. This is indeed a masterpiece of the devil.”
Says Dr Germain Marty, of Paris: The pest, the cholera, the yellow fever, break out suddenly and decimate a village, a province, a whole country, but their passage is transitory in essence. Alcohol takes no holiday." So far back as 1863 the London Times said: "The use of strong drink produces more idleness, crime, disease, want, and misery than all other causes put together.”
But Mr Gladstone drank wine and ale, the Professor tells us. This is cold comfort to the opponents of prohibition. The great statesman, unlike his critic, understood the difference between the individual and the social aspects of the drink‘question. On 27th April, 1882, he, with five other Cabinet Ministers, voted for Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s famous resolution affirming the right of the people by popular vote in each locality to prevent the issue of licenses ; and thus he gave his emphatic approval to the principle of prohibition.*
A Serious Misrepresentation.
Before leaving the question of these " loose and exaggerated ” statements, it wil be worth while to test one of the Pro fessor’s own assertions, which furnishe a glaring example of the fault which he charges upon others At page 52 of his pamphlet he says: We have already in this land prohibition areas; but win is poured into them in abundance, with little, if indeec with any, abatement of quantity.
That is a confident statement, and, with the presumed authority of the author behind it, is calculated to mislead many if it is not in accord with the fact. And it is a mere burlesque upon fact, which a little inquiry would have made impossible. A return for the year ending 30th June, 1910, furnished by the Government, and laid upon the table of the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister on October 7, 1910, shows that, while the average consumption of liquor in the districts in New Zealand where licenses exist is 12 gallons per head, the average in the no-
(*) See Appendix, page 84 (Statesmen on Drink
FROM I HIT lOX .I.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
;)1
license districts is only two gallons per head, or one-sixth. It is probable that some liquor, which does not figure in this return, finds its way into no-license districts, but the quantity must be small, and probably would not increase the average by more than a fraction. The Otago Daily Times (leading article, 17th March, 1911) said of this return: " For, after all, the return laid before Parliament last session, and now printed as a State paper made it clear that the disclosed consumption per head in those districts is only a fraction of the average consumption per head of the whole Dominion.”*
It was said of a late prominent politician, that he was indebted to history for his jokes, and to his imagination for his facts. This latter may be a venal offence in a politician, but in a Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy !
Dr Salmond is inaccessible to authority. When he is told that modern sciences, especially chemistry and physiology, teach that alcohol in all its forms is injurious, his reply is, “ certainly, if all chemists and physiologists are oj one mind on this matter, it is incumbent on us to hear them. But I cannot discover that then do octree ”!
A Form of Mental Paralysis.
This attitude of mind is really a form of mental paralysis. The man who insists upon having all the authorities of one mind upon any question of science, or even upon practical issues, before he will consent to be influenced by them, is doomed to mental and moral stagnation. Who ever heard of an advocate unable to buttress a losing cause by appealing to “ discrepant voices?” And what would one think of the judge who retorted upon the advocate, “ when all the authorities are of one mind I will hear them ?”
But the Professor makes his appeal to experience against modern science. In most cases that is simply an appeal from ignorance to knowledge. But in this ease science and experience are in agreement. It is emphatically not true that “ the experience of all the ages of men tells us with assurance that alcoholic beverages, in moderate use, are wholesome and strengthening to
(’) See Appendix, page 77.
43
PROFESSOR S ALMOND'S BLUNDER
the normal human body.” And if it were, the difficulty of defining the “moderate use” meets one at the outset. And what is a “ normal human body ” ? Plato, quoted by Dr Salmond, advocated the prohibition of wine to boys, and men under forty, to soldiers, magistrates, and guardians. Why? Not because they had not normal human bodies, but because he realised that wine, even in so-called moderation, had a tendency to excite the passions, weaken the body, enervate the mind, and pervert the judgment. With Solomon, he might say: “It is not for kings, O Lemuel; it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink; lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.”
Pliny, the elder, after writing his book on the manufacture of wine, wrote: “So vast the toil, labour, and expense devoted to the production of that which perverts the intellect of man and breeds madness, since thousands are abandoned to this wickedness.”
Milton, in “ Samson Agonistes,” says:
Oh, madness ! to think that use of strongest wines.
And strongest drinks, our chief support of health;
When God with these forbidden, made choice to rear.
His mighty champion, strong beyond compare.
Whose drink was only of the liquid brook.
And divines, historians, poets, philosophers, statesmen, and people of common clay, in all the ages of the world, have urged the danger of wine, and taught the benefits of abstinence. There is a saying that “ experience keeps a dear school, but it is the only school fools will learn in.” The lessons of experience in this case have been bought dear enough, and yet it would seem that many of us have not learned them.
Evils Worse than Drunkenness.
Dr Salmond thinks that while drunkenness is a sore evil and a grievous sin, perhaps it is receiving an undue share of attention : there are, he tells us, various worse evils and heavier iniquities. “If Bacchus slays liis thousands, Venus is slaying her ten thousands.” This is not an inviting subject for the reader, but the open sores of the social body cannot be healed by plasters. One terrible fact in relation
PROHIBITION' AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
33
to the sexual evil is that drink is largely responsible for its prevalence. Is this one of the loose and exaggerated statements of the militant prohibitionist! Let the venerable General Booth be our witness. In ' Darkest England, and the Way Out ” (pages 5354), he gives the report of the head of the Salvation Army Rescue Home. The report (page 54) says: “ Drink. This is an inevitable part of the business. All confess that they could never lead their miserable lives if it were not for its influence. No girl has ever come into our homes from street life but has been more or less a prey to drink.”
And this is true in a modified sense of the other sex. Clement of Alexandria (circ. 200 a.d) said: “ I admire those who require no other beverage than water, avoiding wine as they do fire. Fiom its use (not abuse in the received sense) “ arise excessive desires and licentious conduct. The circulation is accelerated, and the body inflames the soul.” Some very strong testimonies from medical men, showing the close relation between drink and the sexual evil, will be found in Appendix, page 74.
It is a vulgar error to assume that drunkenness is the evil against which we have to contend. How do men and women become drunkards 3 No one ever arrived at that stage by a single step. Our youth and maidens who ultimately become those pitiful beings—the known drunkards of the street and the Police Court—pass through a course of training. The social glass, given in all kindness of heart, has started many a young fellow upon a career ending in drunkenness and dishonour. The unwise prescription of alcoholic drinks has begun the experience which, by slow degrees, has buried many a young woman’s head in shame and misery. The respectable hotel bars furnish the temptation to the gilded youth and the artisan’s son. And, by slow or swift declension, the unhappy mortal who is seized by the drink crave, glides down and out from respectable society, until his name is “ Drunkard.” Shakespeare, in “ Hamlet,” denounces toast drinking as “ a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and says of his countrymen :
Not Drunkenness Alone.
Pl/OFESSOJi SALMOXD'S BLVXDEP.
34
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase
Soil our addition; and indeed it takes
From our achievements, tho’ performed at height,
The pith and marrow of our attribute.
And with an annual drink bill in the Old Land of about .£160,000,000, we may well ask whether this same swinish phrase may not, after all, apply nearer home. But we know that a great part of the evil and loss caused by drink is due not to drunkenness, but to drinking. A great part of our crime, sickness, immorality, disease, insanity, domestic unhappiness, and social loss, is due to drinking habits which fall far short of drunkenness, St. Chrysostom (4th century) wrote of wine in his day that where it does not cause drunkenness it destroys the energies and relaxes the faculties of the soul, Charles Darwin, in the nineteenth century, wrote: “ Through the long experience of my father and my grandfather, extending over a period of more than 100 years, I have reached the conclusion that no other cause has brought about so much suffering, so much disease and misery, as the use of intoxicating beverages!”*
It is not enough to say that drunkenness is a grievous sin. We have to face the facts, and to realise that it is the drinking habit that is the root of the trouble. Business men—indeed, all men conversant with the facts of every-day life—know very well that this is so. Even shrewd publicans are not ashamed to advertise occasionally for a barman who “ must be sober. ’ Some have even insisted upon total abstinence as the prime qualification for the office of dispenser of drink to their customers. How many lives have been lost through the drinking habits of men in positions of responsibility ? None can tell, but it is an indisputable fact that the use of alcoholic liquors increases the danger of accident, at sea and on land. And it is fatally true that the constant drinker is a worse and more dangerous subject than the man who goes on the spree from time to time.
Causation.
In his preface, Dr Salmond anticipates the objection that some will consider his method of discussion too academic, too theoretical, and too theological. This objection applies with
;*) See Appendix, page 86.
PROHIBITWX AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
35
special force to his discussion of causation in relation to the drink evil.
the vital question, however (he informs us), is) that of causation : to what extent is intemperance the cause of the many social evils that afflict us? It is always an arduous task definitely to determine causal relations, and at no time is the task so arduous as in dealing with so vast and complex a subject as society. The very term cause is full of ambiguity, and provides manifold pitfalls for the unwary.
Now this may be all very well for a philosophic discussion, but men iu earnest on any great socio-political question are, with reason, somewhat impatient of any such treatment of that question. It is a sound principle that where an immediate efficient cause of an admitted evil is known, and that efficient cause is mitigable or removable, prompt measures should be adopted to mitigate or remove it ; and that further inquiry as to the remoter causes is largely waste of time, and may lead to confusion of thought and paralysis of effort. By way of illustration, we may take the evil of " sweating.” It was found that the thoughtlessness or avarice of employers led them to take advantage of the necessities of workers, chiefly women in need, and that work was systematically given out to be done in the workers’ homes for inadequate payment. The problem was how to mitigate or remove the evil and secure fair payment for this class of workers. Did Parliament enter upon an inquiry into remote causes, and seek, by legislation, to make employers thoughtful or less avaricious ? Nothing of the sort. It dealt with the conditions as they were found to exist, and made a law prohibiting the practice which was the immediate and efficient cause of the evil: and “ sweating ” ceased to exist.
Moreover, when it is found, as Dr Salmond reminds us on page 37, that “ in social phenomena we have always present the fact known as Mutuality of Cause and Effect—A causes B, and B then reacts causally on A,” —it ought to be sufficiently clear that if A is prohibited, A will not cause B, and B will not then react causally on A. Further, if A and B co-exist, and, acting in combination, cause C, then, if either A or B is prohibited, it will
3(>
PROFESSOR SALMON ITS BLUNDER
be thereafter impossible for A and B to act in combination at all. And if A alone, or B alone, produce part of C, and both together produce all of C, then, if either A or B is prohibited, part of C will be prohibited, and the sum of C will thereafter be less than it was before, by so much as it was caused by the factor which has been eliminated by prohibition. To apply this reasoning to the concrete. The Professor tells us that “ Intemperance and pauperism and crime and misery chase each other in a perpetual circle. Because a man drinks to excess he has a miserable home, and the dreariness of his home sends him back to the bottle, etc.” Here the Professor shows drinking causing poverty and misery, and the poverty and misery so caused, re-acting and driving the man back«to drink. In this case anyone can see at once that, if the drink is prohibited, the. poverty and misery which is caused by the drink will cease ; and so on. The Professor argues in a vicious circle, which only sends us back again to the point from which we started.
Seriously, is progress in social reform to wait for ever upon the halting uncertain steps of the philosopher’s weary journey ? If we are to delay until these profound and insoluble questions are solved, there is no hope for men. For it is evidently not enough to advance cogent reasons, and multiply facts, in support of the assertion that drink is responsible for many well-recognised evils —all the reasons may be watered down by learned abstractions, and all the facts dismissed by an assertion, “ ignoramus." We must, it seems, even hold our hands until all philosophers are of one mind as to the meaning of the term “ cause,” which is “ full of ambiguity, and provides manifold pitfalls for the unwary.”
To write of a great question of social reform as if no steps in it could be taken until the whole chain of causes had been traced out and established is the merest trifling. When the whole world is ringing with the cry for remedial measures against the drink evil, and there is almost practical unanimity amongst religious teachers, statesmen, and social reformers upon the question, it is futile to talk learnedly about first or second, or any other numerical or visionary cause. The obvious effective cause of drinking, and of drunkenness, is drink, and it is but a little step.
PROHIBITION AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
37
possible even to a child, to the conclusion that the effective cause of the evils induced by drinking is drink. Here, if anywhere, we may apply the maxim of Kant, already quoted —“ In matters which concern all men without distinction . . . the highest 'philosophy can achieve no more than that guidance which Nature has vouchsafed to the meanest understanding ” and so proceed upon our way to lighten a little the burden of wretchedness under which men and nations are staggering.
The Philosopher’s Misgivings.
Dr Salmoud’s “ first misgiving " as to the soundness of the prohibitionists’ indictment “ arises from tlie reflection that the social ills referred to—crime, pauperism, vagrancy, lunacy—are as prevalent, nay, more prevalent, in such lands as Spain, Italy, Turkey, India, where drunkenness is rare.” This statement challenges the almost unanimous testimony of the principal Judges of Britain—a testimony covering c, - .buries of experience—that drink is the chief cause of crime. As Axel Gustafson says: “In this challenge one of two things is plainly intimated—either that these judges have been, and are, fools or knaves : either these men, whose business it is to inquire into the cause of crime, and to pronounce the verdict of law upon the criminal, have been, and are, incompetent, or else they have deliberately deceived the public. Certainly no sober Englishman will admit the former, and as to the latter, to discover or devise a motive, or a combination of motives, sufficient to induce even one—still less a succession of judges—to concur in such a misrepresentation is impossible. Even were judges prone to misstatements, no public body could be less interested in doing so, on the topic in question.” (“ Foundation of Death,” page 155.) From the time of Sir Thomas More, the famous Lord Chancellor of Henry VIII, who said that wine and beer houses educate their devotees for crime, to Sir Matthew Hale, the great Chief Baron of the Stuart and Cromwellian periods in the the seventeenth century, who said that four-fifths of all the crime that had come before him had been the issues and product of excessive drinking at taverns or alehouse meetings, and from Sir Matthew Hale to
38
PROFESSOR SALMOXD’S BLUXDEB.
the men of commanding intellect and high integrity, who to-day make the administration of justice in the British Dominions her crowning glory (amongst them being Lord Loreburn, the present Lord Chancellor, and Lord Alverstone, the present Chief Justice of England), multitudes of testimonies have been given by judge after judge that from 60 to 90 per cent of the crime coming before them were directly or indirectly caused by drink.* And, so far as 1 am aware, not one authoritative judicial utterance has yet been quoted the other way. Of what use is it for the Professor to tell us that the statements of such men are “ loose and exaggerated,” and to give us the result of his cloistered thought and lack of experience in opposition? It is Dr Salmond contra mundum. His attitude in this betrays, as so many other passages in his pamphlet betray, the condition of placid ignorance in which he is content to dwell. He is obsessed with the notion that drunkenness is the “ fans et origo malorum,” and entirely fails to realise that drinking, which may or may not reach the point of drunkenness, is the real cause.
Dr Cutten, in his “ Psychology of Alcoholism ” (1907), says that “ Alcoholism frequently gives rise to criminal tendencies on account of the perverted moral judgment and general mental degeneration. The alcoholic crime may take the form of immoral and indecent deeds. This lack of moral sense may often be found among criminals, whose parents were both alcoholics, though they themselves have never used alcohol. Lombroso recently tested the effect of alcohol on latent criminal tendencies. The subject of his experiments was a man who had surrendered himself to the police with the avowal that anarchists wished to make him their instrument for assassinating the King of Italy. The man seemed sane, but no corroboration of his story could be obtained. Unexpectedly, after drinking wine, he broke out into anarchistic threats. Acting upon this hint, Professor Lombroso administered alcohol to him in carefully-measured doses, and discovered that after he had drunk a certain amount he developed violent criminal tendencies.” A man may suffer from chronic alcoholism without ever having been
*) See Appendix, page 90.
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
50
drunk : and it is a commonplace that many men are almost constantly more or less affected by alcohol who give no physical sign of it. Drinking tends to physical and moral degeneration, and the natural and inevitable end of degeneracy is crime.
Now, that in Spain and Italy there is much drinking we know, but we ha\ e few authoritative statements as to the prevalence of crime in these countries. It is significant, however, that Professor Lombroso, who is one of the greatest authorities on the question of the relation of drink to crime, being an Italian, would necessarily have knowledge of the position in his own country, and could not have written as he did if the facts are as Dr Salmond says. The Hon. G. P, Marsh, United States Minister to Italy, wrote from Rome to the Centennial Temperance Conference in Philadelphia in 1876: “It is undoubtedly true in Italy that a very considerable proportion of the crimes accompanied with violence originate in intoxication. And upon what authority does Dr Salmond base his statement that crime is more prevalent in Spain, Italy, Turkey, and India, than in Britain ? The critic who stigmatises his opponents’ statements as “ loose and exaggerated ” may well expect to be called upon for proof of his own. The unsubstantiated assertions frequently made by opponents of temperance reform will not serve him as authorities. As to India, we have the testimony of Keshub Chunder Sen, the celebrated religious reformer of India (1838-1884), who said that, by the introduction of beer and brandy into India, the English had nullified all their splendid benefits, and that the wailing of widows rent the air with curses against them for having introduced drink. By cable from Calcutta, published in the Dunedin Evening Star of 7th March, 1911, we learn that Sir E. M. Baker, the Lh vt Governor of Bengal, in the course of a speech at Lahore, " strongly denounced the intemperance now prevalent in the Central Punjab, involving, as it did, prince and peasant, educated and uneducated, in common ruin. This state of things was,” he said, “ largely increased by the prosperity of the landholders and labourers.” These testimonies do not lend much support to the suggestion that “ drunkenness is rare ”in India—it appears that even the Hindoo is capable of further degradation by the Professor’s “ good creature
51
PROFESSOR SALMONDS BLUNDER
of God!” And, as to Turkey and India, it is clear that, even were the assertion shown to be true, it need not cause serious misgiving to any thoughtful person; for the conditions referred to by prohibitionists are those existing in Christian countries, where the provocatives to crime are largely diminished owing to the beneficent teaching of Christian principles and the vice administration of Christian laws. Does Dr Salmond allow nothing in the ce . nriaon to these great purifying influences? Would he contend that the moral darkness of India and Mohammedan countries is not largely an effect of the religious darkness? In these countries much of the crime and immorality exists because of the absence of Christian teaching, the ignorance of Christian ethics, and the moral injustice of the laws; while in Christian countries it exists in spite of Christian enlightenment and in defiance of it. We find an effective cause for this in drink, and it is a mere counsel of perfection to urge further inquiry into remoter causes before dealing with this prime factor.
Poverty.
Drink (not necessarily, or even generally, drunkenness) causes proverty and squalor. The Hon. John Burns said in October, 1904, that a London sanitary inspector had informed him that month that he had never served an overcrowding notice except upon drinking tenants, and had never issued a notice to abate dirt or nuisance to a teetotaller. The report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes (1885) stated that continued drinking, not necessarily drunkenness, causes people to drift into the slums, and to increase overcrowding. Alderman McDougall, of Manchester, after a careful examination into the causes of pauperism in that city, in which he had the help of the poor law’ officers, found that fifty-one per cent, was directly caused by intemperance. Dr Cutten informs us that the replies to questions sent to every almshouse-keeper in the United States show that at least 51 per cent, of the inmates of the almshouses became paupers through drink. Mr Tudor Trevor says that 70 per cent, of the paupers of England are paupers through drink. General Booth tells us that “ Darkest England ” may be described as consisting broadly of three circles, one within the other. The outer
/‘RAHIBITIOX A \ EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
41
and widest circle is inhabited by the starving and the homeless, but honest poor; the second by those who live by vice; the third by those who exist by crime. “ The whole, of the three circlet is sodden with drink."
Lord Curzon, lately Viceroy of India, said about ten years ago; 'Drink is a leprous spot on the surface of the nation, a moral canker eating into the vitality of our people, and producing effects which do not die with the year or the life, or even with the generation , but which will be reproduced from year to year, from generation to generation, in a terrible portentous legacy of poverty, misery, and crime.” Authorities might be multiplied, but to what use ; Common sense is a sufficient guide. If a man spends his money on drink, it is found by experience that his home must suffer; if a woman drinks, her house will be the abode of discomfort tending to squalor. A drinker is often an inefficient workman, and loss of employment and of wages follows from that. Drink in the home produces unhappiness, and so on round the circle of evil.
Acts and Usages Inherently Bad.
The proposition on page 42 of the pamphlet that ‘'Prohibition must he limited to acts and usages which are inherently bad is entirely opposed to common sense and universal experience. It is strangely at variance with the following on page 19 of the pamphlet:
" In itself, prohibition is only a political scheme; and acts of Parliament are neither morally good nor bad, but only well-advised or ill-advised, prudent or imprudent, expedient or inexpedient. What is the most effective method of dealing with drunkenness must be determined by political principles, not by deduction from theological or ethical principles. There (ire coses in which a political measure has also a moral quality, as when it deals with what is admitted to he a vice cmd inherently had.”
Elsewhere (page 42) he says: “ I affirm that there are limits to the moral function of legislation, and that prohibition is beyond
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER.
53
these limits.” But if prohibition is in itself only a political scheme (and it is so), and if legislation is itself non-moral, why should we trouble about the question as to whether prohibition is beyond the "moral function” of legislation? And if acts of Parliament are “ neither good nor bad, but only,” etc., and prohibition is only a political scheme, it is nonsense to say that “ prohibition must be limited to acts and usages which are inherently bad.”
The proposition is part of the philosophy of the old school of political economists, and is hopelessly opposed to modern thought and legislation. It must be noted that in this proposition Dr Salmond is dealing with prohibition generally, and not merely as a remedy for the drink evil. And the proposition must be considered in relation to Dr Salmond’s approval of the democratic principle of Government, on page 40. He there maintains—
“ The paternal and ethical view of the function of government. If only it be safeguarded adequately against abuse and misunderstanding, I do not shrink from the maxim, Salus pop-uli tuprema lex. A government is simply an organ by which people associated in pursuit of common ends can most effectively cooperate for the realisation of their own aims. A democratic government is not an external authority commanding and coercing us; it is a nation ruling itself and giving effect to its own behests.”
If this last sentence is sound (and that must be admitted), then a law of a democracy is not a coercion, but the act of the body as an organic whole. A prohibitory law is, in those circumstances, not to be regarded as an encroachment upon personal liberty, or a prohibition from outside. What the Professor means precisely by the term “ inherently bad ” is somewhat difficult to discover, but whatever meaning is given to it would include almost the whole of our social legislation in one general condemnation. All municipal and local by-laws must also be repealed or resisted. To drive sheep through a street at 9 o’clock in the morning, or to drive on the wrong side of the road, or at an excessive pace, or to erect a wooden building within certain areas, and a thousand and one other acts, which are, by the common sense of mankind,
PROHIBIT!0S AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
43
properly prohibited by law, are, in themselves, perfectly innocent acts. They are prohibited, not for any inherent badness, but because of the consequences which might follow the doing of them.
Prohibition may be justified by a consideration of the consequences of permitting the act or usage which it prohibits.
If it is found that an act or usage is injurious to society in a degree so serious as to over-balance the convenience of it, and considerations of private liberty, it is both the right and duty of the people to prohibit that act or usage. As Dr Herrick Johnson puts it, ' The legal prohibition of an act is solely on the ground of its evil effect upon society, and not at all on the ground of the inherent evil of the act itself. Public law does indeed make a distinction between the things it prohibits, classifying them as evils in themselves (mala in se) and evils prohibited (mala prohibita); but the ground of their prohibition is exactly the same. Homicide, an act evil in itself (malum in se) is prohibited. So the building of a frame house within the fire limits of the city, an act not evil in itself, is prohibited. There is inherent moral wrong in homicide. There is no inherent moral wrong in building a frame house, but the law seeks to prevent the one as well as the other, solely to protect society. Clearly the inherent rightfulness or wrongfulness of an act has nothing whatever to do with the prohibition of it by law. The amount and character of the evil effects upon others are what determine whether any given thing shall be prohibited or not. If the evils are open, public, imperilling public interests, disturbing public order, endangering property or human life, then the ground is furnished for prohibition. Ten thousand things are wrong in themselves which the law never touches; while things right and innocent in themselves, the law often prohibits.” This statement is in accord with common sense, and fortunately also with common law. Dr Salmond’s attempt to restrict the function of prohibitory laws to acts and usages inherently bad, is in direct conflict with both. Further, prohibition by a state law, and prohibition by the vote of the community, differ greatly in quality. In the first case.
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER
55
the law is imposed upon the people by the legislature, which is thus the sole judge of the rightfulness and wisdom of the prohibition. In the second case, the people themselves are the judges, and the law represents the collective wisdom and agreement of the whole community. It is true that there may be, and generally is, a minority dissenting from the law thus brought into operation, but all law would be impossible if unanimity were required as a condition of its taking effect, and ordered society is based upon the consent of the minority for the time being to the acts of the majority. The right of minorities to protest, in cases of conscience, is, of. course, inviolable; but in all other cases, the decision of the majority must be accepted. The alternative is that the decision of the minorities must be accepted, which is absurd and impossible.
\Ve have now reached the point at which the question of the right and duty to deal with the drink evil by prohibitory action can be intelligently considered, and have stated the principles upon which the arguments of Dr Salmond can be subjected to a final test. His statement —“ So far as I can ascertain, there is not now a single statute prohibiting any acts excepting such as are bad or at least judged to be bad,” must be taken only as an admission of the Doctor’s failure to acquaint himself with the laws of his country, and with the principles upon which those laws are based. One can scarce open any volume of statutes without stumbling across Acts of this kind, the existence of which the Doctor “ has not been able to ascertain !” The proposition that “ prohibition must be limited to acts and usages which are inherently bad,” is a ludicrous misrepresentation, made blindly, and without consideration or inquiry.
The Professor, at page 43, gets on the horns of a dilemma. He has been arguing that prohibition must be limited to acts inherently bad. That has been shown to be untenable, but on page 43 he gravely states: 'Now the sale and use of wine is in itself an innocent act, although fraught with danger. Therefore, in •proportion to its danger, it ought to he under regulation; but why prohibited?” But we cannot regulate the sale and use of alcoholic beverages without definite prohibition by law. To enact that no person except those privileged few who arc licensed to do
PROHIBITJOX AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
56
so, shall sell alcoholic beverages, is to prohibit all other members of the community from selling, and, as the act of sale is innocent, we have by this act of regulation violated his cardinal principle. To be consistent, he must adopt the principle of free trade in liquor, but this he perceives cannot be done because “ the sale and use of wine is fraught with danger . What danger, and to whom ? The interference of law is justifiable only where the general good requires it. The danger is then a public danger. But if there exists a danger to the public from the sale and use of alcoholic beverages, and it should be under regulation “ in proportion to its danger,” it is an inevitable conclusion that if the danger from such sale and use be judged sufficiently great, the right to prohibit it at once arises. The only question, therefore, is:
Is the danger to the public arising from the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages sufficiently great to justify its prohibition ?
If so, since, on the Professor’s own showing, there is power to regulate in proportion to the danger, the right to prohibit and the duty to do so are both established. If it be objected that this conclusion is too wide, the reply may be made in three quotations from John Stuart Mill’s “Essay on Liberty”:
1. “To tax stimulants for the sole purpose of making them more difficult to be obtained, is a measure differing only in degree from their entire prohibition; and would be justifiable only if that were justifiable.”
2. “As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it becomes open to discussion.”
3. “ Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law.”
The whole case is therefore narrowed down to the question stated above. We need not concern ourselves about abstract questions of philosophy, nor about the other equally irrelevant questions raised —whether this alone has serious moral dangers :
46
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER.
whether we shall adopt the legal code of Lycurgus; or prohibit competition in business, lying advertisements, swindling companies, the manufacture of shoddy, the sweating oppression, etc., etc. (some of which are now prohibited by law, although the Professor does not seem to be aware of the fact). Nor need we confuse the argument by introducing such irrelevant questions as whether it is right to penalise “ the act of selling a glass of liquor because some men want too many glasses” (one of the numerous misrepresentations of the prohibitionists’ argument, of which Dr Salmond has been guilty); or whether the liquor seller is a wicked man, or a criminal, or a saint, or whether he should be admitted to church membership, etc. All these side issues are raised in the pamphlet, and one finds it difficult to acquit a Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy of sophistry in dragging them in. We shall not be diverted into a fine-spun and fruitless discussion of any such questions.
The Case for Prohibition. —
The right to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages is based upon the fact that the danger to the public arising from drinking and drunkenness is so great as to justify and require such prohibition.
Professor Salmond has really failed to grasp the first principles underlying the prohibition movement. The right of each State to protect itself and its members from the injury and loss caused by social acts, and to make and enforce laws to that end, lies at the foundation of society. To deny it is to threaten the very existence of law and order, and it is clearly the duty of every member of society to render obedience to any laws so made. We are not here concerned with cases of conscience, or the limitations upon the exercise of the power of the State in such cases. Prohibitionists allege that the traffic in alcoholic beverages is one of the most hurtful social agencies in existence; that it is signally injurious to the State, in that it induces or encourages drinking, which in turn adds enormously to the burdens of the State in loss of industry, in increase of crime, disease, idleness, poverty, insanity, domestic misery, destruction of child life, stunted and
PROHIBITIOX AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
58
weakened manhood, and in other ways: that it imposes cruel hardship on women and children who are members of the society or State. They allege also that recent scientific research has demonstrated that the old notions of the food value of alcohol are mistaken, and that, on the contrary, the effect of its use is uniformly harmful in proportion to that use and the susceptibility of the user. They say that all plans of dealing with this State problem, short of that proposed by them, have proved inefficient, and that, on the other hand, the success of prohibition has been demonstrated.
The questions thus raised are not moral questions affecting the individual, but questions of State policy. The supreme law of Christian conduct- is that a man shall love his neighbour as himself, and is crystalised in the statement of the Apostle Paul, It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.” For the citizen it is contained in the maxim that a man shall so use his own liberty as not to injure others. The rights and duty of the State are, at least, to protect all its members from the injurious acts of each, and to protect its own interests. The right of the individual is limited by the exigencies of the State or society of which he is a member. If he asserts a right to enjoy facilities for indulging an appetite or desire, the onus is on him to show that these can be enjoyed without injury to the State or its members. Professor Salmond does not face these statements directly or with authority, but adopts the old exploded argument that the State has no right to prohibit any act or usage which is not inherently bad, and slurs over the mass of evidence and authority readily available in support of the case for prohibition.
Crime.
The evidence in proof of the case that drink causes crime has already been referred to. The most conservative judicial and official estimates state that more than one-half of the total crime of the country is caused directly or indirectly by drink. No person who has ever visited a police court can have failed to observe with what monotonous regularity the subject crops up.
4S
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER
Indeed, scepticism upon this outstanding fact is possible only to the man who lives apart from his fellows. In San Francisco after the recent earthquake, the sale of liquor was prohibited, and the cable report in our own newspapers told us that there was practically no crime. In Sweden the same results followed the prohibition of the sale of liquor during the great strike of 1909. The judicial authorities of other lands confirm the testimony of British judges. The experience of all lands and of all times establishes a direct and inevitable relation between drink and crime. It was Mr J, S. Mill who said: “It is one of the undisputed functions of government to take precautions against crime before it is committed, as well as to detect and punish it afterwards.”
Disease.
The whole theory of medical science upon the question of the action of alcohol has been revolutionised within the past 25 years.* Sir Victor Horsley, recognised as one of the highest living authorities on this question, says in “ Alcohol in the Human Body” (1906), page 298:
No one disputes that a large number of the diseases which medical men are called upon to treat are traceable directly or indirectly to the habit of taking this drug.
And on pages 299-301 he gives a long list of diseases of which alcohol is frequently a determining or a contributing cause. Among these are syphilis, tuberculosis, erisypelas, diphtheria, liver diseases, diseases of the heart, gout, chronic Bright’s disease, etc.
Among the names of celebrated English doctors who have pronounced emphatically upon this question are to be found those of men like Sir B. W. Richardson, Sir Henry Thompson, Sir William Gull, Sir Astlc-y Cooper, Sir Andrew Clark, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Frederick Treves, Professor Osier, Professor G. Sims-Wood-head, Drs Edmunds, Ridge, Cosgrave, McAdam Eccles, etc.
The fact that the drinking habit is responsible for much of the disease which afflicts mankind is, therefore, fully attested by competent authorities.
(*) See Appendix, page 92, et seq
PROHIBITIOX AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
49
Dr Forbes Winslow, a recognised authority, said (in 1903): " The issue of the fifty-seventh report of the Lunacy
Insanity.
Commissioners contains appalling and sad news. From it we gather that 32 per cent, of lunacy at the present day is caused by drink.” In Paris the lunacy statistics show that 28 per cent., in France 38 per cent., in Prussia 41 per cent, of the male lunacy is from drink. Women do not furnish so great a proportion. It is established by the experience of the principal countries of Europe that drink is largely the cause of insanity. Dr Shepperd, superintendent of the Colney Hatch Asylum, London, said that
“ from 35 to 40 per cent, is a fairly approximate estimate of the ratio of insanity directly or indirectly due to alcoholic drinks.’’ Dr Clouston, the alienist expert of Edinburgh, says: “It is certain that for every man in whom excessive drinking causes absolute insanity there are twenty in whom it injures the brain, blunts the moral sense, and lessens the capacity for work in lesser degrees.”
Domestic Misery; The Children.
It is in the homes, or what pass for the homes, of the people that the full measure of this iniquity is felt. Let anyone who wishes to get at the ghastly facts read such a book as C. R. Sims’s “ Cry of the Children,” and his heart will be wrung with the tales of misery and desolation wrought amongst the children by drink.
. . . the child’s sob in the silence curses deeper Than the strong man in his wrath.
“ One half of the world does not know how the other half lives.” It is the constant contact with the appalling facts of the drink evil which makes men and women turn to prohibition as a remedy for those evils. The late Dean Farrar put the facts in burning language in a lecture delivered in the Church House, London, on November 30, 1898:
And so in Christian England, as we call it, from week to week, from month to month, from year to year, unchecked and disregarded, the hideous and ghastly tale goes on, of children—children full of eternity, children
50
I‘ItOFESSOIi S ALMOND’B II LUX DEI!
for whom Christ died—children whose angels do now behold the face of our Father in heaven—growing up in low, infamous streets, amid the reek of gin, and the sounds of blasphemy; liable to horrible accidents which occur incessantly; exposed to diabolical cruelty from those who by drink extinguish every gleam of natural affection; overlaid in hundreds by drunken mothers. They are burnt, scalded, and injured to death by violence; actually murdered : exposed to dreadful congenital sickness: often trained to sin from their earliest years; born with a frightful hereditary craving: and in the terrible language of South, —through our gross and criminal negligence—not so much born into the world as damned into the world. . .
But this is what Dr Salmond will call a “ brutal assault upon the feelings,” as if feelings were not given to us in order that we might feel, and, feeling, sympathise and help, even to the extent of denying ourselves a personal indulgence, and even to voting for the prohibition of the efficient cause of so much of this dire suffering.
It is to be expected that most of those who read this will be pained and shocked, and will say, as Dr Salmond will say, that such conditions do not obtain in this fair young country. Ask any of our city workers, who go into the poorest homes of the poorest people, and they will tell you stories from their own experience which will be sad enough. But if it be the case that such conditions have not yet arisen in this country shall we, blind to the facts which are patent in the older land; and in the great cities, stand idly by until the same conditions are in full operation amongst our own people? Shall we wait until fin evil is upon us and our children in full force before we move God forbid. It is worth while to do something to prevent th growth of such appalling evils in any land.
Our Own Country.
PHOUIBITIOS AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
62
The Waste Caused by Drink.
The drink bill for New Zealand last year was £3,803,438, or £3 13s Id per head, including women and children. The Rev. E. Walker, who has compiled these statistics for many years past, and whose figures have never been challenged, says that if the cost to the consumer is taken, probably £5,000,000, or £5 per head, or £25 per household, is less than was really spent on drink in this country last year. The smaller sum first quoted would pay the entire cost of the passenger and goods traffic upon the whole of our railways, the cost of maintenance, repairs, and renewals of all rolling stock, etc., and leave sufficient to pay all annuities to retired railway servants, and 5 per cent, upon the whole capital value of, our entire railway assets. It would pay the cost of our education system four times over. It is about equal to the whole of the wages paid to the workers in our factories and manufacturing industries. It would build two Dreadnoughts for the navy; or would maintain a standing army of 30,000 men. It would furnish a sufficient income for 25,000 families. It would build 10,000 comfortable working mens’ houses. And this expenditure goes on year after year. About £BOO,OOO of this money goes into the Treasury in the shape of customs duties, but, if the wasteful expenditure on drink were turned into productive channels, it would give such an impetus to trade, and provide so many additional avenues of employment that the revenue difficulty would speedily disappear owing to the increased spending power of the people.
Money spent in drink is unproductive. Let two men each receive £3 for his week’s work. One takes his money home, and it is spent in food and clothing, furniture, etc. The other takes his to the public house and spends it there. In the first case the tradespeople have benefited by the sale of their goods, and the man and his family have benefited by the home necessaries and comforts purchased. The money has produced two values. In the second case the publican has benefited by the sale of his liquor, but the man has only a sore head for his money, and his wife and family are left in want. His money has returned only one value. Unproductive work and unproductive expenditure are alike lost to
52
PItOFESSOIi S AIM OSD'S BLVSDEIt.
the individual and to the community. The money loss caused by the expenditure on drink is in large part a direct loss to the State.
Now it must not be understood that, while asserting this, the prohibitionist maintains that all money spent upon luxuries is wasted or lost. The hope of betterment, of gaining a surplus which may be used for reasonable and legitimate pleasure, or for things innocent in themselves, which add to the enjoyment of life, is a worthy incentive to labour. Luxury, in itself, is not to be interfered with by law. Professor Sidgwick very truly says: “The prospect of luxury makes men work; and if we balance the two effects on motive I think there can be no doubt that, other things remaining the same, a society from which luxury was effectually excluded would be lazier than a society that admitted it.” But the expenditure on drink is not only waste, but, in the main, is worse than waste. It produces great public evils, and it is largely drawn from the earnings of those who cannot afford to spend money even on innocent luxuries, who need all their earnings for the necessaries of life.
The workman who spends an appreciable part of his wages on drink often cannot pay his just debts, and the tradesmen reap the harvest of his ill-doing in a crop of bad debts. And this does not apply to the drunkard, since no one will trust him. The bad debts of the tradesmen are largely due by moderate-drinking customers, who can get credit, but too often cannot pay. On the other hand, ctrink is paid for in cash always. It takes a little thinking to realise what this drink bill means. There are many homes to which drink is foreign. Not all men drink, and not so many women as men; and there are many children who do not drink at all. If Mr Walker’s estimate of £25 per household is anywhere near the mark, it will readily be realised that, in the homes where drink is welcomed, the expenditure under that head must make fatal inroads on the family exchequer. And every pound wasted in this way is a direct economic loss to the whole community. And let it be noted that this loss falls most heavily where it can least easily be borne—on the wife of the working man most often, who has the wear and tear and unending anxiety to make ends meet.
PROHIBITION' AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
64
Does anyone wish to know the main cause of poverty 1 Surely it is here, right under the eye. It is doubtless true that occasionally the pressure of poverty drives men to drink. But it is equally certain that drink is a very large factor in the causation of poverty. The Hon. John Burns, who may be trusted as a guide upon this question, says, in reply to the suggestion that drinking is not a principal cause of poverty; ' The strongest answer is the statistical fact that as wages rise general drunkenness follows, insanity increases, and criminal disorder, due to drink, keeps pace with all three. The converse generally holds good, for in rural districts, where wages are low, drunkenness is lower, and insanity, due to drink, is scarcer. In support of. these views and tables, the Prison Commissioners report (1899): " A year of great prosperity, 1899 was also a year of great drunkenness.” In 1901 the Prison Commissioners (England) attributed the rise in prison population 'to the greatly increased number of casual, irregular workers, who, owing to the comparative scarcity of labour, had more employment than usual, and had accordingly more money to spend on drink.”
" Wherever,” says Mr Burns, " one seeks for information dispassionately, one sees that drink does cause poverty to a greater extent, overwhelmingly so, than poverty causes drink.” And this is also the testimony of American and Continental authorities.
Loss of Industry, and Idleness.
The industrial value of a man to society is in proportion to his productive power. If a man is drunk, he cannot work. If he is under the influence of drink, he cannot work so well as when he is sober. Alcoholic liquors, taken even in so-called moderation, tend to lower the efficiency of the worker, whether the work be that of the brain or of the hands. The most interesting, and the most recent, evidence upon this point is that given in McClure’s Magazine, of March, 1909, by Professor Rosanoff, director of the chemical laboratories in Clerk University, U.S.A., and Dr A. J. Rosanoff, physician of King’s Park State Hospital, Long Island, New York, U.S.A., summarising the results of long and elaborate experiments conducted
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER
65
by Kraepelin, Professor of the Science of Mental Diseases, University of Munich, Dr L. Schuyder and Professor Paul Dubois, at Berne, and other competent authorities. Some of the conclusions from the experiments were :
Alcohol impairs every human faculty.
The higher and more complex the faculty, the more pronounced is the effect of alcohol upon it.
The effects of alcohol are cumulative—that is, its continuous use, even in comparatively moderate quantities, impairs the faculties at a rapidly increasing rate.
Moderate amounts of alcohol taken with a meal effect a very considerable lowering of the capacity for doing muscular work.
The widespread notion that moderate drinking with meals helps a labourer to do his work , is false.
Moderate drinking reduces considerably an artisan's effi ciency.
But that is only the fringe of the question. The loss of industry and the idleness of workers caused by drink are a serious handicap to any people. Andrew Carnegie was so impressed" by this fact that lie gave a bonus of 10 per cent, of his wages to every workman in his employment who was a total abstainer. Many of the great American railway companies enforce the rule against drinking in working hours by instant dismissal. Some require their workmen to be total abstainers. It is an incontrovertible fact that drink causes enormous loss to society through idleness and impaired efficiency of workers. And this is of vital consequence, since in the keen struggle for industrial and commercial supremacy it is indisputable that the nation whose workers are most lit will win.
All men are mortal, but many realise it prematurely. Dr Salmond says that he has known scores upon scores of worthy men who have used liquor habitually, to the increase of life's well-being. What he means to say is that he has known men who appeared to him to use liquor to the increase, etc.
Length of Life.
PROHIBITION .I.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
66
That the effect of moderate indulgence in alcohol is to shorten life is shown by the experience of the great life insurance societies, who have a separate section for total abstainers. For instance—the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution has been established over 60 years, and has kept separate sections for 36 years, with the experience of 130,000 lives upon which to base its figures. Its experience during 36 years (18661901) shows;
TEMPERANCE SECTION
GENERAL SECTION
Expected Deaths. Actual
Expected Deaths. Actual
8,831 6,300
11,727 11,241
7 1.2 per cent
95.8 per cent
The mortality amongst the abstainers was 25 per cent, lower than that amongst those in the general section. And it must be remembered that the society does not issue policies to excessive drinkers. The test has been between the abstainers and the moderates. The Sceptre Life Association shows an advantage of 23 per cent, to abstainers out of a total of 4592 expected deaths in both sections. The Abstainers’ and General Insurance Company, the Scottish Temperance, the Sun, etc., in England, and numerous life assurance companies in U.S.A. report similar results.
Patriotism and Temperance.
There is a phase of this subject which is of the deepest interest to every patriot. War is a ghastly thing at best, but under present conditions there appears to be no escape from the fact that, to maintain peace we must be prepared for war. But, to be ready, we must have an efficient army and navy. The following significant paragraph appeared in the Dunedin Evening Star of 10th March, 1911 ;
" What purports to be the stenographic text of the German Emperor’s speech at the Murwik Naval College on November 21 was recently published. His Majesty is represented as saying that he was well aware that drinking was an old inherited habit of the Germans, but they must free themselves from the evil by self-discip-
56
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
line. Formerly young men thought it extremely smart to consume great quantities of liquor and to be able to carry it. As a young officer he had occasion to see instances of this, but without ever joining in the revelry himself. Those were exploded notions. They were well enough for the Thirty Years’ War, but not for their day. ‘ Nerves,’ his Majesty continued, ‘ will win the next war. You will see from gunnery practice at target ships the effect of modern gun fire on board ships. You will see the terrible destruction it works. There firm nerves and a cool head are wanted and needed.’ His Majesty concluded by quoting the good example of the British Navy, where 20,000 officers and men had joined temperance societies.”
This warning may well be taken to heart by ourselves. Mr Arnold White, in ‘Efficiency and Empire,” states that; ‘ln the Manchester district 11,000 men offered themselves for war service between October, 1899, and July, 1900. Of this number 8000 were found to be physically unfit.” Sir William Taylor, Director-general of the English Army Medical Service, said, in 1903, that from 40 to 60 per cent, of the men who presented themselves for enlistment were found to be physically unfit for military service. The average of rejections is appallingly high, and it is well known that one of the chief causes is drink. Sir Frederick Treves has something to say upon this question. He was sent out to South Africa to report upon the condition of the army there, and, amongst other things in his report, he says: Troops cannot work or march upon alcohol. I was, as you know, with the relief column that moved on to Ladi'smith, and, of course, it was an extremely trying time, by reason of the hot weather. In .that enormous column of 30,000 men, the first who dropped out were not the tall men, or the short men, or the big men, or the little men; they were the drinkers, and they dropped out as clearly as if they had been marked with a label on their backs.” In the recent war between Russia and Japan, it was the temperate Japanese who was victorious, and not the vodka-drinking Russian.
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
57
In the first half of, last century Sweden was one of the most drunken countries in the world. In 1855 a new law came into
operation, and, by local option vote, the sale of liquor was practically prohibited in the rural districts, containing about threefourths of the population. The following table of the percentage of recruits rejected in that country is instructive:
1831-1840 ... ... ... ... 35.7 percent.
1841-1850 ... ... ... ... 36.4 percent.
1851-1860 ... ... ... ... 35.7 percent.
1861-1870 ... ... ... ... 27.8 percent.
1871-1880 ... ... ... ... 23.7 percent.
1881-1890 ... ... ... ... 20.4 percent.
Lord Kitchener allowed his soldiers no spirit whatever in the Soudan campaign. Lord Roberts, Lord Wolseley, General Grenfell, General White, and other British generals ; Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, and other British Navy commanders, and many Continental and American commanders of similar standing, have
repeatedly pointed the same warning as that of the German Kaiser given above. In America the sale of liquor is now prohibited in all military canteens, and on all territory used as a military field by the Government. Our own Defence Act contains a provision prohibiting the bringing of liquor into any military camp, barrack, fort, etc. Prohibition would tend to restore the efficiency of the manhood of the nation, and be a most valuable aid to all schemes for securing an efficient army and navy.
Drink is the principal efficient cause of crime, disease, lunacy, poverty, vice, misery, loss of efficiency, and premature death, and the loss and injury from these causes is borne by society. And it is the duty of society to protect itself and its members from the evil and losses so caused.
Therefore the right and duty to prohibit the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages are proved.
The fact that the chief function of law is not to punish, but to educate, is quite lost sight of by Dr Salmond, which is singular, considering his position. “ The law,” says
Law is an Educating Force.
58
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER
the Apostle Paul, “ was our schoolmaster.” The Professor says (page 53); “Unless there be a moral sentiment loathing the act which is prohibited, the law must speedily become a dead letter.” Now, it would be interesting to know how intense the loathing must be before a law will be obeyed. The fact that prohibition can be brought into operation only by the vote of the people themselves ought to be a sufficient guarantee of public sentiment, condemning the act which is prohibited in this case. What proportion of voters would be required to exhibit a sufficient “ loathing ” ? To postpone the making of a law until there is a moral sentiment loathing the act, would be to postpone it until the law was more or less unnecessary. This contention may be dismissed with a remark made by John B. Finch 25 years ago—“ There is a class of men, and we have a great many of them, claiming to be leaders of public opinion, who are incessantly preaching that there is no use in making a law until the people are educated up to the point of obeying it ; while they know—if they know anything of the principle of government and law—that it is the thinnest twaddle ever used by demagogues to catch fools. Law is not passed for men who will obey; it is passed for the men who are not educated up to the point of doing so.”
When we have got so far as this, we are met by the objection that prohibition does not prohibit : the law will not work. Dr Salmond says it will not. His slander of the prohibition communities of this country has been already referred to, but he endeavours to create distrust and suspicion of the law by question and insinuation rather than by direct statement (pages 49, 50, etc.). We would fain believe that, like the man detected in a prohibition area with a corkscrew in his possession, who, he tells us, “ has been known to blush,” the Doctor will blush when he realises the full meaning of these suggestions. Here are
Does Prohibition Prohibit?
“ Is it a fable that drug stores begin to multiply, and that they become public-houses under another name?”
Is it a falsehood that the term “ a prescription ” develops
PROHIBITION AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
59
rapidly in elasticity of meaning, and that hotels are found which keep a doctor on the premises to write them for the convenience of customers ?”
Is it altogether a falsehood that hotelkeepers vote eagerly for prohibition because it pays them better than license, or that policemen can be bribed not to see ?”
Argument by insinuation is unworthy of any subject. Unsupported by facts, it is detestable. Why are we not given facts, if there are any, in support of these veiled assertions? They are ludicrously untrue so far as this country is concerned. Will the Doctor say that they are true even in a modified sense of Bruce, Clutha, or Oamaru, the three prohibition areas nearest to Dunedin, of which he may be reasonably presumed to have made some inquiry ? Or will he say that, in spite of the teaching of the churches, and of the moral and spiritual life of this city as he knows it, it would be true of Dunedin ? Are our chemists and medical men the sort of men who would descend into this moral sink at the behest of the devotees of Bacchus ? He dare not say so. One would like to ask for the names of a few men known to him who have suffered this declension.
Sly grog-selling exists in prohibition areas, as it exists in license areas, but its volume is a mere trifle compared with the sales under license. It was only the other day that Dr Mac Arthur, the senior Stipendiary Magistrate of Wellington, warned some of the wholesale liquor merchants of that city that their aid to sly grogsellers in Wellington must cease. The following paragraph from the Otago Daily Times of 13th March, 1911, shows that prohibition will prohibit , when enforced ;
“ Those amendments of the Licensing Act having for their objective the more perfect enforcement of the law in no-license districts would appear to have fulfilled that object in Oamaru. A telegram recently sent by the Press Association agents in Ashburton stated that in that district, as a result of the increased powers conferred on the police by last session’s act, sly grog-selling has become practically a lost art. Though the police
60
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
and persons of authority in Oamaru will not go so far as this (says the Mail), they state that the illegal trade is not now the abuse that it was at one time. ‘ Lighthouses ’ have been extinguished, and a number of lesser lights in sly grogdom have flickered and gone out. Also the importation of liquor is carried out with strict attention to formalities so that the police are afforded greater facilities in tracing such persons as bring in liquor for illegal purposes. Altogether police vigilance, aided by the amended act, has so succeeded in frightening sly groggers that as a gentleman well acquainted with the state that is remarked, "His Satanic Majesty himself couldn’t buy a drink here unless he were known.’’
A prohibitory law will be effective in exact proportion to the honesty of its enforcement. If the officers charged with its administration fail in their duty, the law will fail of its effect, and the converse holds true. As has been somewhat bluntly said, ' prohibition is simply an enactment of law, and prohibition cannot enforce itself any more than an itch can scratch ’tself. But if you will take prohibition and put the right kind of person behind it, prohibition will prohibit’ every time.”
The Seven Devils.
But when we have demonstrated this, we are met with another objection. Says Dr Salmond (page 46);
“ Prohibitory legislation is inexpedient, when there is a serious danger of creating as great, or even greater, evils than such as we are seeking to remedy.”
In this section of the pamphlet we have the argument against Puritanism reiterated. It is repression; it is coercion; an attempt to make men moral from the outside; enforced morality. And all this is very bad indeed; further, it will not succeed. “ You mav,” he says, “ keep an engine in motion by a mechanical pressure on the wheels, apart from, any inward steam power, but it cannot be for long.” The illustration is a little unfortunate. You can keep an engine in motion by a mechanical pressure on the wheels just so long as you continue to apply the pressure. It
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
til
would, however, be unfair to condemn an argument on an illustration. The sermonette upon the text of the seven devils is more in the Doctor’s proper domain, and he improves the occasion thus:
But the” (prohibition) “reform is from the outside. Wait a while; the recoil comes, and the old devil is there again with seven other more wicked spirits, and ire even know their names. The spirit of falsehood and hypocrisy, the spirit of defiant contempt of law, the spirit of perjury, the spirit of meanness and cowardice, the spirit of mutual revilings, the spirit of subterfuge and contraband trading, the spirit of universal insincerity and moral humbug, and, verily, the last state will be worse than the first.”
Now, either Dr Salmond means, by all this, to say that in a state where the liquor traffic is allowed full sway, the devil of drunkenness reigns alone, and there is no lying and hypocrisy, contempt of law, perjury, etc.; or the whole passage means nothing—it is a puerility. Does the Professor, then, expect his readers to believe that whisky is the sovereign antidote for these “ devils,” and that the absence of alcohol will make men liars, hypocrites, perjurers, etc. ? If an abstainer is a liar, will wide cure him of the habit? Are the sanctuaries of the people built upon pillars made of whisky kegs and beer barrels? Dr Salmond has lived in the city of Dunedin for many years. Will he dare to say of the men and women of this city and country that they will be transformed into liars, sneaks, and law-breakers, by the abolition of the traffic in strong drink ?
Drink has some relation to lying, however. Dr Cutten (“ Psychology of Alcoholism,” page 199) says: “ Alcoholic excess seems to destroy all shame as far as it is concerned with the departure from the truth . . . the writer has yet to find one authority who does not speak of the alcoholic in unmistakable terms as a confirmed liar,” and he quotes a round dozen of recognised authorities in support. When the facilities for getting drink are cut off, the men whose moral perceptions have been paralysed will scheme and lie to get drink, and will even commit perjury to
0-2
PROFESSOR SALMON U'S PLUNDER
screen themselves and their associates in wrong-doing. But it is the indulgence in drink, and not the want of it, that has made them untruthful. The seven devils are already in full commission in every drinking community.
Here is a copy of a letter (names omitted) which was produced in the course of a prosecution in one of the Magistrate’s Courts in the North Island some time ago:
“ Dear A.—Just a line to remind you once again to be careful what you say to the ‘ copper,’ that is if he asks you any questions be sure that you tell him you bought it before 10 o’clock, —about 9—say not sure of time, and also be sure to say you paid B. for it, and he handed it to you, but you asked him to put it on one side till you came back for it. If you stick religiously to this, I think I can get out of the soup, as I will get F. to say he saw you buy the whisky, and pay B. for it before 10 o’clock. It is a serious matter for me, and I trust you will help me all you can, and whatever expenses you are put to I will settle for you. . Now, don’t forget, old boy, as this b thing is worrying my tripe out. —Believe me,
“ Yours truly,
“S.
P.S. —B. will say you told him you had bought a bottle of whisky, and wanted to go over for it, also that you wanted him to fetch it out to you. Next time you are in town, come and see me, and we will arrange a defence.”
The letter was from a publican in a district fully supplied -with public-houses, and the reading of it should be a liberal education on “ ways that are dark, and tricks that are (in this case, happily), vain.”
But Dr Salmond cannot have been serious when he penned so gross an insult upon the many millions of men now living under, and voting for, prohibition. If he was serious, then he deserves the castigation administered by Professor David Smith in the British Weekly of December 1, 1910:
“ Often in my work,” said Professor Smith, “ I have to
PROHIBITION AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
74
endeavour to meet objections of well-meaning Christian people who assert that repressive measures, such as Christian legislation is more and more enacting, are valueless from the point of view of God’s true work, since they do nothing to change the heart. It is of no use to close public-houses, we are told : sin will find its expression in some other channel then, etc., etc. What is the value, from a spiritual and eternal point of view, of repressive measures? The blunt truth is that this sort of talk is simply political partisanship in disguise, and the devil is never so objectionable as when he gets unctuous. The aim of those ‘ well-mean-ing Christian people ’ is, if not to buttress iniquitous institutions, at all events to justify themselves in voting against their overthrow. It is very little that they know of the human heart; and if they would take a personal interest in the struggles of sinful humanity, and lend a hand in reclaiming the fallen, they would blush for their folly. Their assumption is a sort of fatalistic theory, which amounts to a negation of the possibility of redemption—that there is a wellspring of wickedness in the soul of a sinner, and it must find vent somewhere. Dam it back here, and it will burst out there. The fact, I need hardly say, is that in the sinner’s heart there is not only a propensity to evil, but a yearning after good; and the tragedy is that his yearning is ever overborne; the good that he would he cannot do, and the evil that he would not, that he does. As the Latin poet puts it, ‘he sees the better things and approves them : he follows the worse.’ ”
The Professor must be well acquainted with this characteristic of human nature, and the most charitable assumption that we can make is that he has fed upon the slanders of the irreconcileable opponents of. this movement, until the virus has entered into his own mind, and become part of it. It is not a pleasant task to write thus of a man who holds the high position in the community which is enjoyed by Dr Salmond. But when he goes
75
PROFESSOR S ALMOND'S BLUNDER
out of his way to stigmatise whole communities who differ from him in opinion and practice upon this question, as being possessed of the seven devils of falsehood, etc., it is impossible to reply in any other terms. There is an old commandment which reads; “ Thou shaft not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
The Educated Classes.
The Professor has something to bay about the propriety of voting for no-lioense and prohibition, and of the danger of contempt of the law, and of evasion and breaches of it, by the dissentient minority, even of the risk that “ provocation may be given to dangerous rebellion.” And who compose the “ minority ” which is to exhibit this spirit of lawlessness ? It used to be said that artisans and workmen would be the leaders in this lawlessness and “ rebellion,” but that is abandoned, since these very men are most eager for the law. In the pamphlet we are presented with another view :
“ Supposing that prohibitionists were assured that they had a sufficient majority to carry their measure, they might, as reasonable men, well hesitate from using their power in the face of any considerable and influential minority. The large, and increasingly large, number voting for prohibition measures arrests attention and provokes inquiry. Who are these voters? I suppose we have i;ot the means of obtaining accurate information, but we can make plausible proximate surmises. I can find only a few abstainers, and still fewer prohibitionists, among the professional classes, such as lawyers, doctors, professors, and lecturers in our colleges, judges and magistrates. I am informed that there are only few among runholders, farmers, and prosperous merchants. Who, then, record their votes for no-license ? Assuming that the classes to which I have made reference are the minority, I seriously ask sensible men whether Such a measure ought to be thrust upon such minorities —a law which they regard not only as mischievous, but as unjust as well, —not only as foolish, but as an insult
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
65
to their intelligence and their manhood ? Can it be right or prudent to reduce such minorities under a moral tutelage such as is fit only for children and savages? Men would never pass such a measure. The issue must be largely determined by the votes of women and of young persons. I am nob going to question either their right to vote or their fitness; but they might seriously consider if, it can really be wise and good to force such measures upon the reluctant manhood of the country, who constitute its very life and strength ? It is not easy for grown men to remain reverent, law-abiding citizens under the pressure of harsh laws which they much dislike. They will bear much and long, but there is a limit, and provocation may be given to dangerous rebellion ”!
This extract throws valuable light upon Professor Salmond’s point of view. Women and young persons voting to control lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. ! “ Men would never pass such a measure.” Unhappily for the. Professor, prohibition has already been voted into legal effect by many millions of men in hundreds of communities in Norway, Sweden, the United States of America, and other countries where women have not exercised any vote. But this is, no doubt, very shocking to a conservative mind.
Does the Professor really believe, then, that “ lawyers, doctors, professors, and lecturers in our colleges, judges, and magistrates, runholders, farmers, and prosperous merchants ” will refuse to “ remain reverent, law-abiding citizens,” and may even be provoked “ to dangerous rebellion,” if the nb-license movement should succeed? The assertion surely requires no refutation. There may be room for more than one opinion upon the question whether “lawyers, doctors, professors,” etc., “constitute the very life and strength ” of the manhood of the country, but there will be general agreement that they are not at all likely to besmirch their honour, and risk the loss of fame and fortune, in vindication of the right to sell or purchase liquor. And it is a vicious thing to suggest that these men are entitled to special consideration—indeed, considering that they are already in possession of many
77
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
material advantages over the other more numerous members of the community, it may very well be conceded that special consideration if due at all, must be given to the members of the less fortunate classes who are most grievously hurt by the liquor traffic. Would it not be more reasonable to argue that these very men would be the first to acknowledge the primary duty of respect for, and obedience to, law, even when it is opposed to their private interests? The suggestion of “rebellion” strikes at the very root of constitutional government.
The cry of interference with the liberty of the subject is raised against every reform. John Stuart Mill objected on this ground, not only to prohibition of, the liquor traffic, but to the prohibition of the opium traffic, the restriction of the sale of poison; to all cases, in short, where the object of the interference is to make it impossible or difficult to obtain a particular commodity. Dr Salmond lays it down (page 54) that—
Individual Liberty.
“ Prohibition stands condemned as a serious outrage against the natural rights and liberties of individuals, and it contemptuously disregards the claims of dissenting minorities.”
The term “ contemptuously ” is here, of course, nothing more than an adverb out of place, like a fish out of water. In a wellordered community, to ask the minority to obey the behest of the majority in a matter of grave public concern, is simply to act upon the only possible rule. It is the old story of whether the dog shall waggle his tail, or the tail waggle the dog. And it is surely late in the day to suggest, as is done in the next paragraph, that any person in a civilised community can possess “ the right to dispose of his body and life, and to regulate his habits and employ his faculties as he may choose, only with due regard to the equal rights of all other men,” unless the last clause is understood with the limitation that society, and not the individual, must be the judge as to what rights and liberties can be so used. But to concede this is to give away the position, as must be clear to those who have given assent to the arguments already stated.
PSOHIBITIOX .4.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL ItEFORM.
78
1 he natural rights and liberties of which the Professor speaks can be enjoyed only in a state of nature. As soon as an organised society is formed, natural liberties cease to exist, and we must then be content with liberty according to law. And it has been well observed that, as society becomes more and more complex, prohibitory laws must increase, in order that individual liberty, or so much of it as is possible or desirable, may be preserved. If the liberty to purchase liquor can be conceded to the individual only at the cost of perpetuating the evils shown to be caused wholly or in great part by drink, then it is sound statesmanship to curtail the liberty of the individual in the interests of society. Under those circumstances, a claim of personal right to have facilities provided for indulging in drink is self-condemned; it indicates pure individual selfishness and indifference to others. " For the man who can separate the facilities for getting drink from the facilities for getting drunk,” says the Rev. R. Y. French, " there is reserved a niche in the temple of fame.” That niche is still unfilled. But men are rapidly rising to a truer conception of citizenship, and it may yet be occupied, ere long, by the man who first showed the way to rid civilisation of the incubus of drink by the curtailment of natural liberty without injustice to the individual. And that is the method of prohibition, since it is based on the now practically universal condemnation of alcoholic beverages, and a due recognition of the evils entailed in their use.
Temptation.
But, objects Dr Salmond, “we may concern ourselves too much about prospective moral dangers and about clearing the paths of men from temptation. It is plain enough that the open facility of purchasing wine is a snare and an occasion of stumbling to many, and that were all the vines in the world uprooted, many a man would be saved from sin and misery. . . . God’s providence does not run on these lines.”
Here again we have serious mis-statement of the position. Prohibition raises no question of “ prospective moral dangers,” but of existing grievous and overwhelming social evils. It is directly concerned with the question of “ clearing the paths of men from
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
68
temptation ” only so far as the existence of the temptation leads to social disorder and injury. This latter question, as it affects the individual, may, however, well deserve serious consideration at the hands of Christian ministers and others who sit at the feet of Him who taught his disciples to pray, ‘ Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”; and who said: Whoso shall cause one of these little ones to stumble, it were better for him if a mill-stone were tied about his neck, and he were cast into the depths of the sea.” To claim the right to have legal facilities for purchasing drink, with the full knowledge that these very facilities are a constant source of temptation and an occasion of stumbling to innumerable other persons, is a denial of the first principles of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and to justify it by a reference to “God’s providence” is impious.
The Christian Church.
The Christian Church can never stand for such a demand. Nay, whenever such a demand is made, the Church must be found in militant opposition if she would be true to her mission.
And this involves taking sides on the prohibition question. The theory of Dr Salmond appears to be that the Christian Church must be silent in the face of the admitted evils of the liquor traffic, and give no counsel to men in relation to their duties of citizenship.
“The mission of the Church,” he says (page 61) “is to fashion the souls of men, and then send them forth into all the various spheres of life. ... Its function is to be the secret leaven leavening the whole lump. . . • The Church, qua Church, had better severely limit itself to its spiritual function. . . . The Church holds itself aloof from social and legislative movements only as one who minds his own business.”
This is strange teaching indeed. Has the Church no moral message : has it no responsibility as to conduct 1 Do its interests not extend to the whole man, and is it not concerned with the social conditions under which men and women and children live?
I‘ROIUHITIOX A.\ EFFECTIVE SOCIAL JtEFORM.
b ( j
May not the Church of Christ lend a hand or raise its voice to remove occasions of stumbling and causes of oppression ? When, in the year 1891, the Rev. Dr Waddell, of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Dunedin, denounced the evils of the sweating system from his pulpit, and threw himself into the movement for legislative prohibition of those evils, no voice was raised in protest. It was recognised that the reverend gentleman had performed a signal service to the community. The spirit of aloofness from social and economic problems accords ill with the spirit of Christian enterprise of the age. The Church is learning that it has a larger outlook. It is surely a narrow conception which would confine it within such limits. Here is no question of “ grasping at political power,” which, in past days, led to disaster; it is rather the simple matter of working out the divine purpose. As Dr Benson, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, puts it, The contest with intemperance is, in one way, the work of, the present day of the Church of Christ, for unless it is done very little else can lastingly be done.” We know very well that, as Cardinal Manning has said, “ the chief bar to the working of the Holy Spirit in the souls of men is intoxicating drink.” The Church is directly instituted for the glory of God, which is to be promoted by the evangelisation of the world. Everything, therefore, which affects the well-being of the people must be a matter of concern and interest to it. Everyone admits that the liquor traffic greatly affects the spiritual, moral, social, and physical well-being of the people. How is the Church to separate itself from the movement for prohibition ? If that movement is based upon a wrong principle, let it be condemned, with reasons. If it be based upon right, then the Church must ally itself with that movement as part of the work of ‘ fashioning the souls of men,” and as intimately related to the spiritual work of the Church. This is now so generally understood and accepted as to render argument practically unnecessary. The great Christian bodies have again and again pronounced themselves in favour of the right of the people to restrict or prohibit the liquor traffic; Convocations, Assemblies, Councils, Union Conferences, Synods, and Church Courts have urged upon their members the duty of voting for this reform. In New Zealand, the Presby-
81
PROFESSOR SALMOXD'S BLINDER.
terian, Methodist, Primitive Methodist, Baptist, and Congregational Churches, the Disciples of Christ, and other Christian bodies, and, in some districts, the Anglican Church, have declared themselves, with emphasis, on the side of the popular reform. We may perhaps be pardoned for saying that, on a question of this order, the great body of the churches are safer guides than an isolated student of philosophy can be.
It will interest many to know that, in accordance with a resolution of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand passed in 1905, Its Temperance Committee issued a statement on “ the bearing of the New Testament on no-license.” The statement, which is dated September, 1905, and is signed by the Moderator and the Convener of the Temperance Committee, ends thus:—“ Are we disciples of the Master ? Has He given us power to withstand, nay, to rise above, the baleful spell of strong drink? If so, it is our duty, and should be our delight, to go and do as he did. We should be willing to help, not hinder, the weak ; willing to clear the stumbling-blocks from their path, not place them there. All lawful means ought to be used by us to make it possible for the victims of drink to rise to a purer and more Christian life. We should do it for their sakes. We should do it for Christ’s sake, who died for them. We should do it for the Father’s sake, who made and loves them. We should do it at the Ballot Box, and outside as well. And thus we shall act in harmony with the glorious teaching of the New Testament.”
The picture drawn by the Professor in the latter part of the pamphlet is a very dismal one. All the teaching of Christ as to conduct in the sermon on the Mount is ideal and impracticable “on account of moral imperfection.” “ Our moral enthusiasm must proceed by slow degrees.” Society must go about with a mask of “mud plaster” for fear of sandflies. We must even wait for moral reform until the sandflies find a new amusement or die out, and then we may wash. Some men would rather suffer the annoy-
A Dismal Picture.
PROHIBITIOX AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
82
auce of insects than wear mud-plaster masks, and such have ere now found that time brought immunity. So it will be with the evils which are prophesied to follow the exclusion of alcoholic beverages. That has been already demonstrated in Clutha and the other no-license districts. But, objects the Professor, “ The ideal of prohibition is no proper moral ideal at all. A state of society in which all men are coerced into the practice of total abstinence would not be an ideal community.” Here we have an example of a fault frequently repeated in this booklet. No prohibitionist ever suggested that a state of society should exist in which all men should be coerced. This is the Professor’s Aunt Sally which he is setting up for the pleasure of knocking her down.
We admit, however, that a prohibition community is not the ideal, but it is much nearer to it than we have yet reached—perhaps as near as “ human sin and folly ” will permit us to attain to. What then ? We need not trouble about the “ideal.” Dr Salmond has disposed of that very effectively on pages 62 and 63. We cannot attain “ to the ideal ” on account of our “ moral imperfections,” “ our hardness of heart,” and there appears to be no way of winning it. Let us, then, be content with the practical. The prohibition idea is practical enough. Norway and Sweden, in Europe, half of the United States of America, portions of Canada and of our own land, seem to like it well enough to vote for and retain it. In one district in Sweden, I believe, the last vote for prohibition was almost unanimous. While we are waiting for something more nearly approximating to the “ ideal,” we may surely make some practical experiment rather than stand ignobly helpless. In all other departments of human activity and progress the march is onward, and it shall be so in this.
A Practical Reform.
“ Oh, but,” the Professor exclaims in effect, “ this is enthusiasm—enthusiasm is all very well and very admirable, so long as it accomplishes nothing. But it will never do to suffer ourselves to be led by it.” The Professor can be a little enthusiastic himself on proper occasions: “If a man finds that a glass of wine makes
PROFESSOR S ALMOND'S BLONDER.
72
his pulse beat faster and stronger, quickens the circulation in the brain, sends a warm glow through the abdominal viscera, loosens the tongue” (in vino veritas!), ‘'quickens the imagination, facilitates conversation, adds to geniality, chases the cloud from the brow and smooths away its wrinkles, is he, therefore, a depraved man with morbid appetite 1” Surely not, although a more delightful instance of the petitio principii could hardly be sought for. Was the Professor fresh from his Horace when he wrote the above passage?
0, Drink is mighty ! secrete it unlocks.
Turns hope to fact, set* coward* on to box,
Takes burdens from the careworn, finds out parts
In stupid folks, and teaches unknown arts.
What tongue hangs fire when quickened by the bowl ?
What wretch so poor but wine expands his soul ?
One cannot forbear placing in juxtaposition to that of the Professor and that of the old pagan, St. Augustine’s lurid passage in which he calls drinking “ the mother of all mischief, the root of crime, the spring of vices, the whirlwind of the brain, the ruin of the body, the wreck of chastity, the plague and corruption of the soul.”
But, do not all thinkers allow that to enthusiasm the world is indebted for all its great reforms? The moderate man is he who will not allow his soul to be fired with enthusiasm for any good thing. And be will never do anything worth doing—the while he is obsessed with his philosophic moderation.
The Facts Proved. Excelsior I
It has been shown that the use of alcoholic beverages among the Englishspeaking peoples of the world is, of all causes, the most prolific source of poverty, of disease, of physical degeneracy, of lunacy, of immorality, of crime; that it leads multitudes to dishonour and to early death, and is sapping and undermining the strength and manhood of the nation; that these beverages are never necessary, and are generally injurious, to the individual: that by the alarming extent of the indulgence in alcohol the resources of the State are wasted, industry is crippled, and the moral and social life of the individual and of the nation are eaten into as by
PROHIBITION -I.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL PEFOEM.
73
a cancer. The burden of wretchedness ever presses heavily on the homes of the people, and makes the lives of the innocent wives and children of the drink victim hopeless and intolerable.
A policy of nerveless inaction in the face of this gigantic evil will not commend itself to men and women of heart and brain. There is a brighter outlook, a wider horizon, and in the coming years we hope to see men moving forward and upward to the goal of human faith and effort. In this age of enlightenment and progress much is possible, nay, actual, which before was not dreamed of : and in the realm of social law we are witnessing an irresistible onward march that makes slowly but surely for the betterment of social conditions and the uplift of men.
The people of this country are now faced with a very grave position. Every thoughtful person who has followed the argument to this point must surely be convinced that something must be done. An opportunity is presented by our present law to deal effectively with the whole question, and considerations of patriotism and of individual interest alike appeal to us to grasp the opportunity. The responsibility is upon the individual to act and vote upon his unprejudiced convictions. There is no alternative scheme for dealing with the drink evil before the country. In the past innumerable other schemes have been tried and have failed, while prohibition has been tried and has proved to be an efficient remedy. It is not in the least likely that any new proposal worthy of consideration will be made at this stage. The path of duty and of enlightened citizenship is clear. We shall yet see this fair land of ours, which we love with a passionate devotion, swept clean of the plague which threatens our life and progress.
“Once to every man and nation, comes the mo me. hi to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side -
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by for ever ’twixt that darkness and that light.”
PItOFKSSOI! SALMOXD'S BLVXUKIt.
74
APPENDIX.
The quotations given below are taken —some direct from the authors 7 speech or book, others from reliable sources, and all are believed to be correct; but I do not undertake to trace each to the original source.
An officer does me as much honour by drinking my health in water as by using wine.—His late Majesty King Edward VII.
OUR FIRST NEW ZEALAND BISHOP.
Bishop Selwyn, the great pioneer missionary of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, said (speech in Free Trade Hall, Manchester, November 3, 1874):—“ I have just lately come from the State of Maine, and I must say that the appearance there was very much in favour of the Maine liquor law. There is no such temptation there as was exposed to the people of England. When the time comes when the whole mind of the nation shall be rightly informed, . . . then members of Parliament will be instructed by their constituents to vote for such laws as the Maine law ... in order that where moral suasion and preaching failed, the law may control those who desired to convert liberty into licentiousness.”
THE SOCIAL EVIL AND DRINK.
REMARKABLE TESTIMONY OF LEADING REPUTABLE PHYSICIANS OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, A NO-LICENSE
CITY.
(From the Kansas Issue.)
It is a well-known fact that liquor-drinking and prostitution keep fast company. Where the former prevails the latter is invariably present ; and where the latter is present diseases of the most loathsome character are fastened upon the community, spreading contagion and suffering to the innocent as well as to the guilty.
The liquor traffic is a prolific breeder of social vice. Henoe its existence is a curse to society ; while, on the other hand, its absolute
75
PROHIBITION' .4.Y EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
prohibition is the greatest blessing that can come to any community.
With a view to obtaining authoritative statements of the case, the Good Citizen and the Kansas Issue secured written interviews on the subject from a large number of the most reputable and bestknown physicians of Topeka (Kansas, U.S.A.). All of these men are in the active practice of their profession, and some in addition are occupying chairs in our medical colleges.
The following are their statements:
John C. McClintock, M.D., President Kansas Medical College and Professor of Surgery:—“ A few years ago the prohibitory law was strictly enforced in the city of Topeka. During that period of time some of the venereal diseases almost entirely disappeared. In my opinion the disappearance of those diseases was due to the action of that law.”
W. S. Lindsay, M.D., Professor of Diseases of Mind and Nervous System, in Kansas Medical College:—“ When I began the practice of medicine twenty-five years ago, I lived in a small city in which alcoholic drinks were sold freely. At that time I had occasion to treat venereal diseases much more frequently than I have now in a larger city which has had no saloons for several years past —and that, too, notwithstanding the fact that I have now a much larger patronage.”
Wm. B. Swan, M.D., President Homoepathic Medical Society of Kansas:—“ Does the use of alcoholic liquors directly or indirectly cause an increase in venereal disease! Will the prohibition of the sale and use of these liquors decrease the percentage of these dread diseases ? There can be but one answer to these- questions, and that afirmatively. It destroys character. It murders morality. By their use the citadel of the soul is overthrown, the mind is weakened, self-respect is gone, the love of home and family is dwarfed. Alcoholic liquors excite the passions. Unrestrained passions lead to venereal excesses, and these excesses often engender venereal diseases. It is a fact well known among medical men that a decrease in the consumption of intoxicants lessens venereal diseases. It is a remarkable fact that the two great social evils—intoxication and sensuality—have gone hand in hand through all the centuries. Hence, if we would lessen the prevalence of these evils, the use of intoxicating liquors must be prohibited,”
S. G. Stewart, M.D., Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medicine, Kansas Medical College: —“ It is well know n to the medical profession that the rigid enforcement of the prohibitory law some years ago was immediately followed by a marked decrease in that line of medical practice known as venereal diseases; to use plain language, those diseases that are the result
76
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
of association with prostitutes. Specialists in this line of practice were the first to notice and speak of it, and were heard to say that should the prohibitory law continue to be enforced so strictly they would be compelled to take up another line of practice. Can we give a reason for the above statement of facte? Yes, no man with the proper self-respect or the proper regard for his family relations could be induced to visit such resorts when in the full possession of his faculties. But, after a visit to the saloon, joint or club, where liquors are on tap, and having taken a few drinks, he comes under the anaesthetic effects of alcohol, which, with fiendish selection, first put to sleep the higher moral faculties. All previous good training and high resolves are without effect. The Guards are asleep on post. Man’s enemy, alcohol, has done its work. He comes out of his debauch with a disease that may ruin his life and be visited upon his children even to the third and fourth generation.”
C. F. Menninger, M.1)., Ex-president Kansas Homoepathic Medical Society;—“ It is true that the use of alcoholic beverages is a prolific cause of the social vice. When liquor enters, manhood and self-respect depart or are lethargised, the moral sensibilities are benumbed, the passions inflamed, and the drinker falls an easy prey to the polluting influences that appeal to the gratification of his animal appetites. Every honest physician knows and will admit that that community which refuses to tolerate the presence of the drink traffic is the community which is the freest from prostitution and the venereal diseases that are almost sure to follow. The strict enforcement of the prohibitory law in Kansas would reduce to a minimum the social vice, if not entirely obliterate it.”
R. S. Magee, M.D., Secretary of the Faculty, Kansas Medical College, and a specialist in diseases of the eye and ear;—“ Specialists in genito-urinary diseases are free to say that during the past ten years in Kansas there has been a gradual decline in the number of cases of venereal diseases. The decrease in the number of this class of cases in which there is eye or ear trouble brought on by this loathsome disease bears a similar and corresponding ratio. I can testify from personal observation and from records in private practice that there has been a marked diminution noticeable each year, and I have every reason to believe it to be due to the fact that men in possession of their sense of honour will not frequent such places of low resort, only doing so when their mental faculties are stupefied by whisky to the sense of danger lurking there—unconscious of the degradation and misery which they necessarily bring on themselves and transmit to posterity.”
M. R. Mitchell, M.D., Ex-secretary City Board of Health also four years’ experience in police court as City Physician:
I‘KOHIBI TIOX .4.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL HE FORM.
77
" The influence of intoxicating drink tends to increase sexual immorality and venereal disease, in three ways — viz.: By the association with and influence of immoral companionship. It stimulates and produces morbid sexual desires. It dethrones reason, degrades appreciation of true manhood and womanhood, and blunts the moral sensibilities and feelings of self-respect. The police court record tells the story of many a life of moral degradation and disease having its incipiency coincident with some primary scene of Bacchanalian revelry. The brothel flourishes best beside the saloon or joint. On the other hand, undeniable testimony proves the great diminution in the frequency and severity of venereal disease where prohibition is enforced.”
NEW ZEALAND NO-LICENSE DISTRICTS.
It is a misconception to suppose that, since prohibitionists continually refer to the prosperity in no-license districts, they claim that all this prosperity is due solely to no-license. Attention is called to the facts partly to show that no-license or prohibition is an important factor in the well-being of these districts, but chiefly to refute the flood of false statements published on the other side. An example of what has to be contended with is dealt with on page 30.
On the 7th October, 1910, Sir Joseph Ward, Prime Minister, laid upon the table of the House a return showing the amount of liquor sent into no-license districts during the year ended the 30th June, 1910. The return was asked for by Mr Ell, member for Christchurch, in consequence of statements to the effect of those contained in Dr Salmond’s pamphlet. The return, taken together with the return showing the total consumption of liquor in the licensed districts of the Dominion shows:
Per head. Per adult
License districts ... ... ... 12 gals. 22.7 gals
No-license districts ... ... ... 2.1 gals. 3.5 gals.
Clutha (the oldest no-license dis
trict, 16 years in force) ... ... 2.4 gals.
waik; is the greatest gold-mining centre of New Zealand. No-license came into effect on July 1, 1909. Leaving that year out, as half was under license, and comparing the years 1908 and 1910, the official returns show a remarkable diminution in criminal offences:
1908. 1910.
License. No-license.
All convictions (omitting by-law cases) 242 102
Drunkenness ... ... ... ... 85 16*
* 8 of whom are reported as coming in from licensed districts.
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLVNDEI
89
MASTERTON is a sawmilling and dairying district, with a substantial central town. No-license came into force there on July 1 1909 The official returns show that there were 302 convictions for drunkenness in 1908, 159 in 1909 (six months license) and only 39 in 1910. The Masterton No-hcense League have obtained the figures relating to the Police Court cases in Masterton. The following extracts show how these offences named, which are most likely to be related to drink, haVe been affected:
Entirely license. Entirely no-license
1908. 1910
Drunkenness ... 302 39
V agrancy •• • • • • 24 Common assault ... 12 0
Obscene language ... 21 0
Indecent exposure ... 4 0
Disorderly conduct ... 15 0
Breach of peace ... 9 0
Indecent assault ... 0 1
Attempted suicide ... 2
Burglary ... 7 0
Forgery ... ... ... 9
Theft 69 3
■' The returns show that there has been a marked diminution in the number of serious offences in the district during the past year, compared with the year 1909, a portion of which only was under no-license conditions. The comparison with 1908, when license obtained, affords a still more striking contrast. The figures speak eloquently for themselves, and require no comment. From the point of, view of crime, no-license has been overwhelmingly successful.”—Wairarapa Age, Masterton, January 19, 1911.
The following is from the Dunedin Evening Star, March 27 1911:
SUPREME COURT.
MASTERTON’S GOOD RECORD
Per United Press Association ]
MASTERTON, March 27. 1911
The sittings of the Supreme Court commenced to-day before the Chief Justice (Sir R. Stout), who congratulated the district on the progress made during the past forty years, and the absence of any serious crime. Only on© resident of the Masterton electoral district had been convicted since February, 1909—namely, a Chinaman. In the Magistrate’s Court, too, the criminal cases showed a decrease from 391 in 1909 to 191 in 1910. His Honor said he knew of no other district in the colonies where there had
PROHIBITIOX -I.V EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
90
been such a diminution in crime, and congratulated the district on the fact.
An unofficial return prepared for the United Temperance Reform Council, Dunedin, from all the available official returns, covering the longest periods for which those returns were available, shows the following results of convictions for all offences, and for drunkenness only, in no-license towns for equal periods in each case before and after no-license came into operation;
All offences. Drunkenness.
Before. Since. Before. Since
Balclutha (10 years) ... ... 292 122 133 27
Clinton (7 years) ... ... 157 41 Not available.
Gore (5 years) ... ... ... 507 244 279 114
Ashburton (2 years) ... ... 323 155 175 43
Invercargill (1 year) ... ... 315 290 145 86
Invercargill (1 year) ... ... Not available 232 69
(Invercargill returns not available for other years.)
Port Chalmers (2 years) ... 545 189 323 126
Oamaru (18 months) ... ... 440 142 285 34
Milton (11 months) ... ... 50 15 22 4
Kaitangata (11 months) ... 83 12 7 4
Totals 2712 1210 1601 509
It must be remembered that, during the period covered by these figures, liquor could be freely taken into, and stored in, these towns, but not sold there. The law is now materially altered. But the diminution in drunkenness, and the corresponding reduction of crime, is very marked.
ASHBURTON.
The following paragraph appeared in the Ashburton Guardian, March 2, 1911:—“ A person who had interested himself in the study of ‘ sly grog-shops,’ told the Guardian reporter that almost all the sly grog-sellers are now giving up their risky business. He added that the nolice surveillance is too thorough to allow the trade to be carried on to any extent, and the demand for liquor does not warrant the risk of £5O fines.”
OAMARU.
On September 13, 1910, Mr Justice Williams is reported in the daily press as having congratulated the grand jury on “ the wonderful absence of crime in their district. It was three years and a-half since a criminal case had been tried in the Supreme Court in Oamaru. Their labour would be light as there were only twm cases on the criminal calendar.”
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
80
Charitable Aid,
The following is a copy of a letter signed by the chairman and secretary of the Oamaru Benevolent Trustees, published in the Otago Daily Times, June 16, 1908:
“ Before no-license became law in Oamaru the trustees were considerably troubled by the drinking habits of some of those who were in receipt of relief. Sometimes there was trouble through a recipient coming for relief under the influence of liquor. When this was so, his or her relief was immediately stopped, but in most cases they had to be reinstated, as they could not be allowed to starve. Some sold their stores to purchase drink, tea being the favourite medium. Indoor recipients had to be prohibited from coming down the street on Tuesdays and Saturdays (sale days) as some used to hang round hotel doors till some friend asked them to have a drink, and, as very little upset them, there was trouble on their return to the house ; in fact, in several cases, to prevent trouble, the trustees had to take out prohibition orders against inmates. Under no-license things have altered very much for the better. The number of applicants for relief has decreased, and, from a Charitable Aid point of view, as touching those cases in which drink was a factor, we should say no-license had been a success.
(Signed) W. H. COTTRELL, Chairman.
WALTER GIBB, Secretary.
Public Meeting
Addressed by (amongst others) the Mayor (Mr R. Milligan), who said, inter alia: —“ In business he had not been injured by no-license ; in fact, his business had increased. He was told by one of the largest business men in Oamaru that last year was the most .successful that he had ever had—the largest turn-over and the smallest number of bad debts. . The Council had been able to reduce the rates 3d in the £. He believed that Oamaru had felt the depression less than any other place in New Zealand, with the possible exception of Invercargill. And there was practically no unemployed. No-license had been so successful that it might be considered a permanent part of their social order, and he knew many who had not voted for no-license but who would now give half a dozen votes for it if they could.”— (Applause.)—Oamaru Mail, July 6, 1909.
Consensus of Medical Opinion in Oamaru.
(Extract from Oamaru Mail, May 1, 1909.)
As a result of the misleading reports furnished on their return by commissioners from Australia and elsewhere, who have paid flying visits to Oamaru, and have taken away with them a
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
92
superficial knowledge of the subject, the medical men practising in Oamaru have appended their names to the following statement ;
“In view of the fact that Commissioners from Australia and other places visiting Oamaru to inquire into the working of no-license appear to have formed erroneous impressions, which reflect upon the drinking habits of this community, we think it advisable that our united experience should be made public. We find, in making our continual visits to the homes of the people, that there is no evidence to show that drinking in homes is more prevalent now than it was in license times. Our united experience shows that there is a decrease in the cases treated which result from alcoholism. We are convinced that no-license has been a great benefit to the community from a moral and health point of view.”
Albert I. Garland
James Whitton
Alexander Douglas
Kenneth McAdam
BRUCE.
At the present time there is not a vacant house in the capital of the Tokomairiro Plains (Milton). . . . While there may not be a great bustle and hurry in the streets of this country town, business keeps well up to its normal level, and the financial standing of the inhabitants is very sound.”—Otago Daily Times, February 11, 1911,
CLUTHA.
In the Dunedin Evening Star of April 8, 1910, appeared tDe following;—"Balclutha is experiencing a building boom on a modest scale. Residences are in great demand, and several families have been forced to go into lodgings until new places can be built.”
On March 1, 1911, the following appeared in the same paper: —“ Our Balclutha correspondent writes: ‘ There is a prospect of ample work locally in the near future. In addition to the water works, freezing works, and five or six substantial brick buildings, including a new Post Office, are likely to be in course of erection within the next few months. The well-known Milton drapery firm of Edward Stewart, has just purchased a small block of buildings in the principal street of Balclutha, including a vacant corner site, with the intention of erecting an up-to-date drapery shop on the corner right away. Mr G. H. Gilroy was the former owner of the block, and the price is stated to have been £2400.’”
PTtOFESSOIt SALMOND'S BLUNDEIt.
93
There have been practically no cases of sly grog-selling in the Clutha courts for some time past.
MATAURA.
In the Outlook of March 26, 1910, the following appears; “On March 15 the Mataura Presbytery met, the Rev. W. F. Evans (Moderator) in the chair. In regard to no-license the following motion was passed; —‘ That the Presbytery of Mataura put on record the satisfaction of members of Presbytery with the working of no-license during the past seven years. They find that drunkenness in the homes has decreased, that “ shouting ” is practically abolished, that sly grog-selling has not increased, and open drunkenness is conspicuous by its absence. Crime has greatly decreased, and the moral tone of the community is better. There is nothing like the intemperance and drunkenness among young people there was under license, and property values and trade have greatly improved.’ ”
Mayor and Councillors of Gore.
Previous to the 1908 poll (after five years of no-iicense), the Mayor and councillors of Gore signed a statement affirming the benefits of no-license, which was published in the Otago Daily Times of June 9, 1908. One of, the clauses read: “Restoration of licenses would be a great disaster to the whole community.” Signed by Archibald McGibbon, Mayor, and by all the members of the Council. From the Otago Witness theatrical news of August, 1909: “ Theatrical managers and proprietors will be interested to know that the enterprising town of Gore (principal town in Mataura) is having a new theatre built, capable of seating 1000 people. Gore is one of the most progressive and up-to-date towns in New Zealand, and there is always a good house for any firstclass company that happens along.”
INVERCARGILL.
The President of the Southland Trades and Labour Council. “ Since no-license has been carried I am more than ever convinced that this remedy will work wonders if only given a fair field and no favour. As a constant traveller on" the Bluff line, I am simply, I may say, astonished at the reformation it has effected in the conduct, language, and good order of the crowd going home on Saturday nights. Travelling in the trains is now an altogether different thing to what it was before no-license came into effect. Then nobody was safe from insult, disgusting language, and disorderly conduct. Now these things rarely if ever happen.
PROHIBITIOX AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
94
I am only too sorry to think that some of the working classes are opposed to this reform, which, to my mind, is for their best interests.”
(Signed) Jacob Alsweiler,
May, 1908
Second Anniversary, Invercargill
At a large public meeting—over 1000 present —the Mayor (Mr Scandrett) testified to the good results of no-license. Rev. R. Raine moved: “ That this meeting of Invercargill citizens expresses its appreciation of the substantial benefits derived from the abolition of licensed bars, and urge the adoption of no-license in other electorates.” Seconded by Mr G. W. Brown, estate agent, and carried unanimously.—Otago Daily Times, July 2, 1908.
Crime.
The Supreme Court sits three times in the year in Invercargill, and at nearly every sitting since no-license came into operation the Judges (Williams, Denniston, Cooper, and Chapman, J.J.) have congratulated the district on the comparative absence of crime of a serious nature.
Accommodation in Invercargill.
Statement by the Mayor
" In pursuance of instructions from the Municipal Council, the Invercargill Borough Inspector, on September 7, 1908 (two years and two months after the bars had been closed), reported as follows: —‘ I am fully aware of the fact that slanderous statements have been circulated in respect to the present condition of the hotels and boarding-houses as against the time of license, but after careful investigation of, all the facts for and against the changed conditions, I am firmly of opinion that the hotels and boarding-houses at the present time are as good as, and in some cases better than, they were under former circumstances.’ ”
(Signed) W. B. Scandrett
(In the presence of R. F. Cuthbertson, J.P.)
Charitable Aid.
At the monthly meeting of the Southland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board on Thursday, December 11, 1910, there were no applications for charitable aid. The Chairman of the Board, in 1908, said that his experience in Invercargill had satisfied him that if all Southland were to adopt no-license as Invercargill had done, the demands for charitable aid would be reduced at least 75 per cent.
95
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER
Mr J. R. SCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE SOUTH ISLAND □ AIRY ASSOCIATION ON NO-LICENSE.
In the Otago Daily Times of August 3, 1908, Mr Scott said: “ I have been travelling all over Otago and Southland very frequently for the last 30 years, and have constantly visited the areas that are now under no-license, both before they adopted that policy and since. I am therefore in a position to make a well-informed comparison. My experience is that I now get a better bed, better meals, and am in every way more comfortable in the hotels in the no-license areas, than I used to be in these same hotels when they had licenses. Compared with the same class of town under license, I have also no hesitation in saying that the accommodation in the no-license areas in Otago and Southland is in every way superior. Speaking of, the general results of the no-license law, there can be no doubt whatever that the communities that have adopted" it have been very greatly benefited. I am surprised that so partial a prohibition as local no-license gives, when it is only a single area with licensed houses near it, should accomplish so much good. I like to be under the mark rather than over it, so will say no more, but more could be said without being unduly favourable to the no-license policy.”
f My experience since writing the above has fully confirmed all I have said.—J. R. Scott, 12/4/11.
STATESMEN ON DRINK.
Drink—the only terrible enemy England has to fear.—Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, January 28, 1884.
Drink is the mother of want, and the nurse of crime.—Lord Brougham.
If I could destroy the desire for strong drink in the people of England what changes should we see? We should see our taxes reduced by millions sterling a year; and we should see our gaols and workhouses empty; we should see more lives saved in 12 months than are consumed in a century of bitter and savage war. We should transfigure and transform the face of the whole country.—Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, at Sheffield, January 1, 1874.
Drink is the curse of the country ! It ruins the fortune : it injures the health; it destroys the lives of one in twenty —I am afraid I should say one in ten—of our population.—Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, at Birmingham, November 15, 1876.
The experiment you have made has succeeded, and in its success is involved the triumph of an interesting effort, for the moral elevation of the great body of the people.—Earl Beaconsfield, J u ly. 18, 1874 (at the opening of Shaftesbury Park Estate, where prohibition was enforced).
VROHIUITIOX AS EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
96
The temperance cause lies at the foundation of all social and political reform. —Richard Cobden, 1853.
Suppose only one-quarter of the sum spent in liquor to be saved, do you suppose any Chancellor of the Exchequer would go to work to put on that sum again by taxation ? Not he; he would learn to do without it.—Lord Derby, at Liverpool, 16th January, 1880.
Let us all carry with us, deeply stamped upon our hearts and minds, a sense of shame for the great plague of drunkenness, which goes through the land, sapping and undermining character, breaking up the peace of families, often choosing for its victims not the men and women originally the worse, but persons of strong social susceptibility, and open in special respects to temptation. This great plague and curse, let us remember, is a national curse, calamity, and scandal.—Mr Gladstone, at Liverpool, in 1893.
I don’t care what kind of unpopularity it may attract, but the first stage in social reform is temperance. —John Morley, June 1898.
Whether we succeed or whether we fail, to the cause of local option I am irrevocably pledged.—Sir William Harcourt, in 1895.
Undoubtedly it would be a happy thing for our country if such a law (Maine prohibitory law) were sought for by the people themselves, and enforced with their full concurrence. The struggle of the school, the library, and the church, all united, against the beer house and the gin palace, is but one development of the war between heaven and hell.—Charles Buxton, M.P. (a brewer), in North British Review, February, 1855.
Intemperance at this moment is one of the greatest social scourges we have to undergo, for it is the parent and producer of countless evils, and if we could put an end to it, by any means, we should deserve the gratitude of posterity.—Right Hon. A. J. Balfour.
Alcohol pollutes whatever it touches. It enervates where it does not enslave. It destroys slowly that which it does not degrade quickly.—Right Hon. John Burns, October 31, 1904.
" The trade ” blasts and blights human happiness, degrades and pauperises, shames the purity of woman, darkens the home, and makes child life miserable, terrible, and horrible. —Sir Thomas Whittaker, M.P.
Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (late Prime Minister), Mr Asquith, Mr Lloyd-George, and other members of the British Cabinet, have all spoken in strong terms of the evils of drinking. The present British Government is pledged to the principle of prohibition by local option.
PROFESSOR S ALMOND'S BLUNDER.
86
Beer makes people stupid, lazy, and incapable.—Prince Bismarck.
Theodore Roosevelt on the saloon business; “ The friends of the saloon-keepers denounce their opponents for not treating the saloon business like any other. The best answer to this is that the business is not like any other business, and that the actions of the saloon-keepers themselves conclusively prove this to be the case. The business tends to produce criminality in the population at large and law-breaking among the saloon-keepers themselves. When the liquor men are allowed to do as thej wish, they are sure to debauch not only the body social, but the body political also. The most powerful saloon-keeper controlled the politicians and the police, while the latter, in turn, terrorised and blackmailed all other saloon-keepers. If the American people do not control it, it will control them.”—From Munsey’s Magazine, 1910. 8
Abraham Lincoln; “ The liquor traffic is a cancer in society, eating out the vitals land threatening destruction, and all attempts to regulate it will not only prove abortive, but will aggravate the evil. There must be no more attempts to regulate the cancer. It must be eradicated, not a root must be left behind; for, until this is done, all classes must continue in danger of becoming victims of strong drink. If it is a crime to make a counterfeit dollar, it is ten thousand times a worse crime to make a counterfeit man.”—From Munsey’s Magazine, 1910.
LITERARY MEN ON DRINK.
In all the towns and countries I have seen, I never saw a city or a village yet whose miseries were not in proportion to its publichouses. . . . Ale houses are ever an occasion of debauchery and excess, and either in a political or religious light it would be our highest interests to have them suppressed.—Oliver Goldsmith.
Daniel Defoe says of drinking: “ From hence come poverty parish charges, and beggary.” J
It is amazing that the preparing and selling of this poison should be permitted (I will not say in this country) in any civilised state.—John Wesley.
The styes the law has licensed
. ’Tis here they learn,
The road that leads from competence and peace.
To indigence and rapine.—Cowper, “ The Task.”
Clinking baffles us, confounds us, and mocks us at every point. It outwits alike the teacher, the man of business, the patriot, and the legislator.—London Times, 29th March, 1881.
PEOHIBITIOX A.\ EFFECTIVE SOCIAL HE F OHM.
S7
No way so rapid to increase the wealth of nations and the morality of society could be devised as the utter annihilation of the manufacture of ardent spirits, constituting as they do an infinite waste and an unmixed evil.—London Times, December 7, 1853.
This detestable traffic is like the destroying angel of Egypt; it scarcely leaves a house where there is not one dead. It is the curse of England, and, if unchecked, would be its ruin.— Alexander McLaren, D.D.
It is one of my most earnest and urgent wishes that some such bill as the Permissive Bill do become law. From the bottom of my heart I wish you success, complete and speedy. — Thomas Carlyle to Sir Wilfrid Lawson, April 18, 1872.
Strong drink is not only the devil’s way to the tippler, but the tippler’s way to the devil. —Dr Adam Clarke, in Commentary on 1 Peter; 5-8.
People dread cholera, but brandy is a far worse plague.— Balzac.
Those healths will make thee and thy state look ill, Timon.
Here’s that which is too weak to be a sinner,
Honest water, which ne’er left man in the mire.
—Shakespeare, " Timon of Athens.”
O thou invisible spirit of wine.
If thou hast no other name to be known by,
Let us call thee devil.
—Shakespeare, “ Othello.”
Why, how now, Claudio? Whence comes thy restraint?
From too much liberty, my Lucio, liberty,
As surfeit is the father of much fast,
So every scope by the immoderate use
Turns to restraint. Our natures do pursue —
Like rats that ravin down their proper bane—
A thirsty evil; and when we drink we die.
—Shakespeare, “ Measure for Measure.”
“ Let me be your servant
Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty;
For in my youth I never did apply
Hot and rebellious liquors to my blood,
Nor did I with unbashful forehead woo
The means of weakness and debility,
Therefore my age is as a lusty winter,
Frosty, but kindly.”
—Adam, in “ As You Like It.”
Speaking for myself (and, perhaps I may add, for persons of my temperament), I can say, without hesitation, that I would
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER
88
just as soon take a dose of arsenic as I would of alcohol, under such circumstances. Indeed, on the whole, I should think the arsenic safer, less likely to lead to physical and moral degradation. It would be better to" die outright than to be alcoholised before death.
If a man cannot do brain-work without stimulants of any kind he had better turn to handwork —it is an indication on Nature’s part that she did not mean him to be a head-worker.— Professor T. H. Huxley (in response to an inquiry as to what he thought about “ alcohol as a stimulant to the brain in mental work ”).
As soon as the people come to understand the nature of alcohol, they will drive every saloon out of the country. —President Hadley, Yale University, U.S.A.
This is one of the disadvantages of wine, it makes a man mistake words for thoughts.—Dr Johnson.
GENERAL BOOTH.
I am a prohibitionist. . . . The Salvation Army has always been, is now, and will for ever be, against the drink traffic, lock, stock, and barrel.—General Booth, London War Cry, February 8, 1908.
ARMY AND NAVY.
Vice-Admiral G. King-Hall, in an address on the topic, “ Alcohol and Efficiency of Navy Service,” at London, in July, 1909, declared“ My experience, after forty-four years’ service, is that about 80 per cent, of the crime against discipline, such as leave-breaking and insubordination, is owing to excess in taking spirituous liquor. During the last thirty years great and growing advance has been made by temperance in the Navy. There are now about 25,000 total abstainers belonging to the Royal Navy Temperance Society; the Lords of the Admiralty and most of our Admirals and Captains are patrons, and there are branches in nearly all ships. Small substitutes, such as tea and cocoa, are given in the service to men who stop their grog, and many more would stop it if given a penny a day in lieu of their grog.”
Admiral Lord Charles Beresford wrote that “ the marked decrease of crime in the service is due to decreased drinking habits, and marked improvement in temperance sentiments in the fleet, and to the support given to it by officers and men. Temperance habits add to the happiness, cheeriness, and manliness of the men and directly to the efficiency of the fleet.”
Admiral Von Muller, Chief of the German Emperor’s Naval Cabinet, wrote: “In German Navy grog rations are excluded
PROHIBITIOX AH EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM. «
so
from ships and all canteens on shore and afloat, and to every recruit joining the Navy is given a pamphlet warning them against alcohol abuse.”
Prince Beruadotte, Swedish Admiral, wrote: “Alcohol is the greatest cause of disobedience to discipline, and of all the punishments given to sailors in our Navy, and it would be a great blessing to our Naval Forces if we could get rid of the use of alcohol.”
I believe that prohibition would be an inestimable benefit to this country, and to the world.—General P. E. Grant, U.S.A.
The present high efficiency of the American Navy is due to temperance on the part of its sailors, 95 per cent, of whom abstain from the use of liquor. Albert Ross, U.S.A., at Chicago, January 12, 1910.
To-day three maritime powers surpass all others in the matter of naval gunnery—Great Britain, the United States, and Japan,—and, knowing the strenuous total abstinence regulations now in force by these three nations, may we not assume that this superiority is due to the total abstinence encouraged or enforced?— Chicago Tribune, October 17, 1909.
The campaign in Egypt was a teetotal campaign. We drank the Nile and nothing added. ... In no other part of the world have I seen a force of men so fit and so well.—General Grenfell, 1896.
Temperance means less crime and more thrift, and more prosperity for the people. Nearly all the crime in the Army can be placed to intoxication, and I have always found that when in an Army or body of troops in the field, there was no issue of spirits, or where their use was prohibited, the health, as well as the conduct of the men, was all that could be wished for.—Lord Wolseley.
Lord Kitchener, before his advance on Omdurman, banished all alcoholic liquor from his army.
General Sir lan Hamilton, in a speech at Edinburgh, delivered recently under the auspices of the United Free Church, said that “ the mightiest blow ever struck in Scotland was that of Bruce upon the casque of Bohun, at Bannockburn : and that a blow, as mighty and as memorable, would crash the cask of whisky, which had paralysed the power and lowered the life of the finest and bravest troops in the world.”
Lord Roberts has frequently testified to the great benefit of total abstinence in the Army, one of his reported statements being that the- improvement effected by temperance in the Army had been equivalent to the addition of three new battalions.
PROFESSOR SALMOND'S BLUNDER.
91)
The soldier who abstains altogether is the best man. He can accomplish more, can march better, and is a better soldier than the man who drinks even moderately. Mentally and physically he is better. Brandy is the worst poison of all. Next to it comes beer. Each limits the capacity and lowers mind, body, and soul. Strong drink tires, and only increases thirst. For soldiers, water, coffee, and, above all, tea, are the best drinks.—Count von Haeseler, late Commander of the Sixteenth Army Corps in Germany.
My experience as Military Surgeon has taught me that alcoholic liquids are unnecessary, and do not belong to human food-stuffs. During the war of 1877-8, those soldiers who did not indulge in their brandy rations endured their exertions much better than those who used them. Old drinkers were the first to break down under exertion.—Dr C. F. Wahlberg, Surgeon-in-Chief of the Finnish Army.
JUDGES ON DRINK.
Wine is the most powerful of all things for exciting the passions, being, indeed, a common fuel to all.—Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor (16th century).
Tippling houses, taverns, and other dens of iniquity, wine and beer houses, ... do not all these, after rapidly exhausting the resources of their devotees, educate them for crime?— Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor (16th century).
I have found that if the murders, manslaughters, burglaries, robberies, riots, tumults, adulteries, rapes, that have happened in that time (20 years experience on Bench) were divided into five parts, four of, them have been the outcome of excessive drinking.—Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice (17th century).
In nine-tenths of the cases (of crime) the primary taint is from some public-house or beer shop.—Mr Justice Wightman, August, 1846.
Whatever steps we take, and into whatever direction we may strike, the drink demon starts up before us, and blocks the way,— Mr R. D. Hill, Recorder of Birmingham.
Some of the saddest cases with which we have to deal are those in which men go into public-houses respectable and respeCjted, and come out felons,—Mr Justice Keating, February,
I now conclude by saying to you and the British Parliament: Public-houses are nuisances, and they should be suppressed.— Judge Crampton (Ireland), in his charge to Grand Jury, Dublin, 1857. J
PROHIBITIOX AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
102
Before the sovereignty of the people can bear its proper sway, the people must get rid of the sovereignty of the pot-house.— Sir William A’Beckett, First Chief Justice of Victoria, 1855.
Public-houses are just so many allurements and ambushes, so many traps and pitfalls, in the path of the working man. There is not, in my opinion, any question which so deeply touches the moral, the physical, and the religious welfare of the world.—Earl Cairns, Lord Chancellor.
If England could be made sober, three-fourths of her gaols might be closed,—Lord Chief Justice Coleridge.
If the people of this country would be weaned from the fatal habit of drinking, crime would be diminished one-half.—Lord Justice Kay.
The root of almost all crime is the hideous tyranny of drink.— Mr Justice Hawkins (Lord Brampton).
At Lancaster I cannot help seeing what every other judge has seen before, that drink is the great cause of the crime with which the judges have to deal.—Mr Justice Grantham.
Considerably more than one-half of all the crime that comes before us is traceable directly or indirectly to drink.—Lord Justice Lush.
It is drink that is at the bottom of almost all the offences of violence which have been tried before me.—Mr Justice Denman.
Most of the crimes of violence proceed either directly or indirectly from drunkenness.—Mr Justice Mellor.
The crying and besetting crime of intemperance—a crime leading to nearly all other crimes, a crime which they might very well say leads to nineteen-twentieths of the crimes in this country.—Lord Fitzgerald.
Much, if not all, the business of the calendar is the result of strong drink.—Mr Justice Hayes.
This disgraceful vice, the parent of crime.—Mr Justice Grove. If it were not for drinking, you and I would have nothing to do.—Judge Pattison, to a jury.
Drunkenness is at the root of nine-tenths of the crime committed in this country.—Sir W. Bovill.
Crime is the immediate and direct effect of that besetting evil—Drink.—Baron Martin.
Saturday is pay day, drink day, crime day.—Lord Bramwell
After forty years at the Bar, and ten years as a judge, I have no hesitation in saying that ninety per cent, of the crime of this country is caused by indulgence in drink.—Lord Alverstone, present Lord Chief Justice of England, August, 1909.
PROFESSOR S ALMOND'S BLUNDER.
92
Lord Loreburn, the present Lord Chancellor of England, recently quoted and approved the above statement of Lord Alverstone.
The case at the bar is the seventy-sixth murder case I have tried, either as State Attorney or as Judge, during the past nineteen years. I have kept a careful record of each case, and I have to say that in 75 out of the 76 liquor was the exciting cause.— Judge Butler, Cairo, U.S.A.
DOCTORS ON DRINK.
I have no hesitation in attributing a very large proportion of some of the most painful and dangerous maladies which have come under my notice (during more than twenty years of professional life), as well as those which every medical man has to treat, to the ordinary and daily use of fermented drinks taken 1 in the quantity which is conventionally deemed moderate.—Sir Henry Thompson.
In whatever direction the physician turns his attention to determine the persistent attacks of alcohol, he sees nothing but disease and death.—Sir B. W. Richardson.
The only proper use of alcohol to an ordinary healthy person is its disuse-' Either as a food or as a drug, we recognise that alcohol is of no service—or of very little—to the community. No service as a food, and very doubtful service as a drug. A system of legislation should be enacted whereby the sale and use of alcohol shall be very largely prohibited and prevented. The medical profession knows well that alcohol is a potent cause of disease, poverty, and death. —Sir Victor Horsley.
Alcohol is the most destructive agent that we are aware of in this country. I hardly know any more potent cause of disease than alcohol.—Sir William Gull.
When I think of these things lam disposed ... to give up my profession, to give up everything, and go forth on a holy crusade, preaching to all men —Beware of this enemy of the race.— Sir Andrew Clark.
There is no scientific justification for the employment of alcohol in medicine. Alcohol is a virulent poison, and, as such, should be placed in the list with arsenic, mercury, and other dangerous drugs. —Dr B. W. Carpenter, the eminent physiologist.
Spirits and poisons are synonymous terms.—Sir Astley Cooper.
Alcohol, like chloroform, is a narcotic poison.—Sir B. W. Richardson.
Alcohol is the pathological fraud of frauds. —Dr Norman Kerr.
PROHIBITION AN EFFECTIVE SOCIAL HEFOUM.
104
Throw all the beer and spirits into the Irish Channel, the English Channel, and tlie North Sea, for a year, and people in England would be infinitely better. It would certainly solve nearly all the problems with which the philanthropists, the physicians, and the politicians have to deal. —Professor Osier, Professor of Medicine and Therapeutics, Oxford University, 1907.
I dread the task of operating on a drinker.—Sir WTlliam Paget.
Alcohol is a poison. In chemistry and physiology this is its proper place. Many readers may receive this dogmatic assertion with a “Pooh, pooh!” “fanaticism and folly,” “we know better!” Let me support the assertion, therefore, with authority. “ The sedative action of alcohol on the brain,” says Christianson—and we know no higher authority either as regards poisons or the article of the materia medica —“constitutes it a powerful narcotic poison.” —The late Professor Miller, Edinburgh University.
The old saying, “ Wine is the milk of the aged,” is entirely wrong; . . . the habitual use of alcohol, excepting in the smallest quantity, is to them even more injurious than to younger people in their full activity.—Sir Hermann Weber.
Alcohol is, under no conditions, and in no amount, beneficial to the healthy body. There is no reason for doubt as to the justice of calling this substance a poison.—Professor Fick, Physiologist, Wurtzburg, Germany.
Alcohol is a waste product in the activity of the yeast plant.— Dr Hodge, Professor of Physiology, Clark University, U.S.A.
Alcohol predisposes men to strife and crime, and upsets habits of work and perseverance.—Professor Sikovosky, St. Petersburg.
It is only lately that we have begun to regard alcohol as a drug, and not as a food.—Sir Spencer Wells.
More than three-fourths of the disorders in what we call fashionable life arise from the use of alcohol.—Sir Andrew Clark.
It was formerly thought that alcohol was in some way antagonistic to tuberculous disease, but the observations of late years indicate clearly that the reverse is the case, and that chronic drinkers are much more liable to both acute and pulmonary tuberculosis.—Professor Osborne.
For every real drunkard, there are fifty others suffering from the effects of alcohol.—George Harley, M.D.
Alcoholism strikes a man not only in his own person, but also in his descendants.—Dr Lunier, Paris.
The rule is, that if, the father is a drunkard, the daughter loses the power of suckling.—Professor Bunge (Germany), one of the greatest physiologists.
PROFESSOR SALMONU’S BLUNDER.
105
When you take chloroform or alcohol you poison the cells of your body,—Professor Metchnikoff.
Alcohol is one of the chief curtailers of human life. The man of twenty who drinks has a probable life of fifteen years before him, the abstainer one of forty-four years.—Professor Lombroso, Italy.
The abuse of alcohol commences with its use. —Robert Koppe M.D.
If, by some magic influence, all the inhabitants of these slums were at once and forever to give up drinking, a sober nation would soon improve all the slums off the face of the earth.—Dr J. J. Ridge.
Alcohol is a chief cause of surgical accidents and injuries of all kinds. . . . There can be no doubt that the excitement and loss of control produced by alcohol, even when not taken to great excess, are responsible for a very large number of those lapses from social virtue that are attended with such dire results. . . . For many years I have entirely dispensed with alcohol as an aid in surgical treatment.—Dr Pearce Gould.
The facts all go to prove that our general belief, in benefits derived from the use of alcoholic beverages is a pernicious delusion.—Dr James Edmunds.
Alcohol is never a food nor a stimulant. . . . The less alcohol you take the better. —Dr Edmunds.
No man can do the best work of which he is capable if he is taking alcohol. Alcohol acts as a cumulative poison.—Professor Sims-Woodhead, Cambridge University.
In view of the. close connection between alcoholism and tuberculosis, this congress strongly emphasises the importance of combining the fight against tuberculosis with the struggle against alcoholism.—Resolution of International Congress on Tuberculosis, Paris, 1905.
There seems no more hopeful cure than the voluntary giving up of this brain poison. There is no means of general safety of greater value than prohibition.—Dr Legrain, London Anti-Alco-holic Medical Congress, London, July, 1909.
Lobular pneumonia, cardiac failure”—so runs the usual certificate, and the cause of the cardiac failure in ninety-nine cases out of, a hundred is alcohol.—Or A. A. Hill on the use of alcohol in pneumonia, British Medical Journal, February 6, 1909.
Professor Cesare Lombroso, the Italian specialist, a standard authority, in Crime: Its Causes and Remedies,” says: One of the most fatal effects of alcoholism is pauperism. It is a fact that with the increase in wages, drunkenness and its accompanying crimes also increase. Alcoholism is connected
PROHIBITION AX EFFECTIVE SOCIAL REFORM.
106
directly with crime both from a social and pathological point of view. . . . According to Marambat, of 3000 convicts examined by him, 78 per cent, were drunkards, 79 per cent, of these were vagabonds and beggars, 50 per cent, of the assassins, and 5( per cent, of the incendiaries were drunkards. Marro found that drunkards stood in the first rank as highway robbers—B2 per cent. Vetault found among forty alcoholic criminals that there were fifteen homicides, eight thieves, five swindlers, six assaulters (on women), four assaulters (wounding), and two vagrants.”
Alcohol Vntagonises every manifestation of life, stamps every tissue with the seal of disease, depraves the morals, and destroys the soul.—Dr Alex. MacNichol, New York, address at Medical Temperance Conference, Hartford, Conn., U.S.A., October 30, 1906.
Alcohol causes directly and indirectly at least 10 per cent, of all deaths in the United States. It should always be classified as a poison, and never as a food. —Dr G. W. Webster, President of Board of Health, Illinois, at National, Scientific, and Medical Conference, Washington, March, 1909.
Alcohol is a poison. It is claimed by some that alcohol is a food. If so, it is a poisoned food.—Dr F. Peterson, Columbia University, U.S.A.
I do not know a solitary case occurring in the widest range of medical practice in which alcohol is the best remedy that can be applied.—Dr W. H. Waugh, Editor Clinical Medicine, Chicago.
I rarely or never prescribe alcohol as a medicant or a food, or sanction its use as a beverage.—Dr Eshner, Professor of Clinical Medicine, Philadelphia.
I think the tendency of the medical profession throughout the country is to give up alcohol in the treatment of diseases.— Dr Mann, Dean Medical College, Buffalo, IJ.S.A.
My belief is there is very little need for the use of alcohol. I alfnost never use it in my practice.—Dr Cutler, Harvard Medical School.
I believe that alcohol is the greatest foe to the human race to-day.—Dr Fernald, Clinical Lecturer, Medical College, Boston.
A GREAT ORIENTAL SCHOLAR ON THE BIBLE AND WINE.
The Church of England Temperance Chronicle published in 1906 an editorial, of which the following is part;
“It is somewhat strange, in these days of enlightenment on all phases of the temperance problem, that we should not more strenuously have sought to clear our Bible and our religion from
PROFESSOR SALMOND’S BLUNDER
96
the imputation which is often made against it, that it gives some sort of moral support to the consumption of alcoholic liquor.” After quoting an imposing array of authorities against the use of alcoholic liquors as beverages, in any quantity, the editor says: ■■ These doubts” (as to the accuracy of the translation of the word “wine”) “will be raised afresh by a pamphlet recently published on the subject by one of the great Oriental scholars of the day— Mr Farrar Fenton, M.R.A.S., M.C.A.A., etc. Mr Fenton is possibly one of the greatest Hebrew and Chaldee scholars of modern times, who has devoted a very time to the translation of the Bible into modern English, and is therefore an authority whose word ought to have much weight. . . . We will give a paragraph which summarises the result of a study, of which he says :— ‘ By using the original Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek text, I have endeavoured, by careful philological, literary, and critical examination of each of the numerous references, to accomplish the task before me.’ The summary says: ‘There are 13 different words or vocables used —nine in Hebrew and Chaldee, and four in the Greek,—all of which are rendered by the European translators indiscriminately as ‘ wine ’ or ' strong drink, although all are intrinsically solid substances, but which may be turned into intoxicants by human ingenuity. When, however, we examine the passages where these words are used, we find the sacred writers speak, in the most numerous cases, of them not as intoxicants but as foods, which was their ordinary form of consumption. Where distinct reference is made to.them as means, after human manipulation, of intoxication, drunkenness, and debauchery, their use in that form is invariably condemned and vehemently denounced by the prophets and moralists of the Bible as’ the causes of personal sin and national ruin. Their use in these forms of alcoholic liquors or fermented wine, was absolutely forbidden in the religious ordinance of the Temple or altars, and especially was excluded from the sacred rites of the Passover, and to all priests during the period of their ministration.’” The Temperance Chronicle concludes; “In the light of the opinion of such a scholar, and in view of the finding of modern science, we venture to think that the time has come when the Church should demand from its authoritative heads the re-examination of the whole matter. Mr Fenton gives in his pamphlet all the passages in which one or other of the 26 words which are translated ‘ wine ’ occur, and sets against them the real and actual meaning of the word, and, naturally, we are anxious to know whether Mr Fenton is right or not.”
Printed at the Otago Daily Times Office, Dunedin.
The Drink Traffic A Blunder
A REPLY TO PROFESSOR SALMOND
(Second Edition.)
BY A. R. ATKINSON, 8.A., Oxon.
of Lincoln’s inn, barristf.r-at-i.aw FORMERLY SCHOLAR OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD
\\ hen I meet with such compositions I lay no blame on the authors for talking so wildly, seeing that it is a custom even among those who profess philosophy. What stirs my wonder is that they should expect their inaccuracies to escape detection.
Lucian
Licence they mean when they cry Liberty.
Milton
For wholesome laws preserve us free
By stinting of our liberty.
Butler
ffiUllinqtoit, iT.'s.:
Wright & Carman, Printers, 146 Pentherston StrnPt.
1011
To My Mother on Her Eighty-Seventh Birthday Prov. 31.28.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER „ QE
I. The Challenge Accepted - - - 5
11. “Prohibitionist Exaggerations” - - 8
111. More “ Prohibitionist Exaggerations ” - 14
IV. Figures and Fallacies - - - ig
V. The Turk and Others - - - 24
\I. The Province of Government - - 28
VII. Fears, Fancies and Fairy Tales - - 35
VIII. Law and Opinion - - - 40
IX. Warnings from History - - - 44
X. The Verdict of Science 31
XI. Plato and Prohibition ' ' - 59
XII. The Cry of the Children - - - 62
XIII. The Appeal to Scripture 67
XIV. The Fallacy of the Judajan Analogy - 73
XV. The Parallel of Slavery - - - 80
XVI. The Law of Love - - - - 84
XVII. The Professor and Providence - - go
Index g-
5
CHAPTER I.
THE CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
A Professor is a man who thinks otherwise.—
German Proverb.
Truly with malice he may travail.
Mischief he may conceive, but delusion will be its issue.—
Psalm 7.14.
(Cheyne s Translation).
I’ll follow him no more with bootless prayers—
Shakespeare.
1. The Professor’s Purpose.
“My purpose,” says Professor Salmond in the opening paragraphs of his pamphlet* “is simply to argue that whatever the people may do in dealing with drunkenness they should not do what the Prohibitionists urge, that whatever may be right, that way at least is wrong.” He anticipates the objection that his treatment of the subject is “too academic too theoretical and too theological.” His reply is that every man must argue in his own way, and that he is persuaded that “the right way to argue the question is to carry it up into its abstract principles.” For my own part I am always too grateful to anyone who will carry any discussion back to first principles to dream of seeing anything but a merit in such a method of discussion. And it is a pleasure to acknowledge that in rhetorical and dialectical skill, in historical and literary allusion, in humour and in style, Dr. Salmond has merits which are not usually associated with the championship of the liquor traffic.
2. A Barren Negative.
We cannot have too much theory nor too much theology in the discussion of a problem which touches morals and religion very closely, provided, of course, that the theory and the theology are at once sound and relevant. But there is a sense in which the Professor’s charge against himself of being “too academic” has more point. The early days of the Academy at Athens were associated with the glories of Plato. Two centuries later it owned the sway of an ingenious and eloquent dialectician, of whom it is said that “defending himself in the negative vacancy of asserting nothing—-not even that nothing can be asserted—he carried on a vigorous war against every position that had been maintained by other sects.” Dr. Salmond’s attitude to the greatest reform of the day is academic in this special and undesirable sense. His thesis is purely negative, and he sticks consistently to the destructive method throughout.
* “PROHIBITION A BLUNDER”: by William Salmond D.D. Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy, Otago University, Dunedin • Jolly and Braik.
This pamphlet is referred to as “S” in these pages. The symbol indicates one of my own paragraphs.
113
The most awful scourge of civilisation excites no apparent interest in the Professor beyond a desire to prove that one particular remedy proposed is wrong; “whatever may be right, this at least is wrong.” Now as a rule there is nothing less convincing than negative criticism of this kind, and nothing less helpful. It was a remark of Dr. Johnson that “so many objections might be made to everything that nothing could overcome them but the necessity of doing something.’’ And the trouble is that in a practical world that necessity always exists.
3. “Let Us Alone!”
If there is one thing upon w'hich the mind and conscience of the people of this country are definitely resolved, it is that the liquor traffic cannot be allowed to remain as it is. That has been their settled conviction for years, and judging the traffic by its fruits they are on the point of saying, ‘‘Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?” when Dr. Salmond intervenes. His eloquence might prevail, at any rate for a while, if he had any positive suggestion to make. But fortunately he has nothing but a barren negative to offer, and that is the very last thing that can satisfy an uneasy conscience in the presence of an intolerable evil. “Can’t we leave it alone?” was Lord Melbourne’s favourite prescription for difficult questions, which is in effect adopted by Dr. Salmond. And the people of New Zealand will assuredly answer "No, we can’t.” A less respectable moral precedent might be cited than Lord Melbourne’s formula: “And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, ‘Let us alone.’ ” That cry, which has been well called “the prayer of evil,” sums up the positive side of Dr. Salmond’s plea for the liquor traffic: and “whatever may he right,” a Christian people will answer with confidence that “this at least is wrong.”
4. Inaccurate, Unscientific, and Unscriptural.
As to the destructive criticism which Dr. Salmond aims at the policy of Prohibition, my endeavour will be to show:—
1, That his attack upon the Prohibition party for reckless and inaccurate statements recoils upon his own head.
2. That his unfamiliarity with the rudiments of the liquor problem is so profound as to suggest either a voluntary blindness or an invincible obsession.
3. ’l'llat his attitude to every aspect of the question is that of an unbalanced partisan.
4. That his historical analogies are fanciful, fallacious, and grossly misleading.
5 That his theory of the functions of the State has no foundation in principle, authority or practice.
<5. That his appeal to abstract principles on this and other questions consists mainly of an unreasoned assertion of his own prejudices.
7, That his treatment of the problem from its physiological side is a parody equally of science and of common sense.
8. That his talent for misquotation and misinterpretation is so amazing as to amount almost to genius, and does not spare even the sacred writings.
9. That he wrests the Scriptures to the detriment of Prohiuition by tile same means which have pitted them against science and philanthropy in the past, and by the loose application of a smattering of text learning has arrived at a conclusion entirely opposed to the spirit of the New Testament.
114
S. More Sensitive Than His Client.
Dr. Salmond declares that he expects from his opponents “nothing but severe criticism and relentless hostility” (S. 4), He raises no objection, “for in. so doing Prohibitionists will,” he says, “deal with mo only as I have dealt with them.” “Relentless hostility” is hardly the passion that a Doctor of Divinity should feel proud to have either indulged or excited. Hut possibly he means nothing more than that he has trailed his coat, and hopes that somebody will tread upon it. To this extent lam prepared to oblige him. Availing myself of the spirit of his invitation I shall endeavour to tread as firmly as, politeness will permit. Except for the purpose of complying with this condition no attempt will be made to blunt the edge of my criticism. It is indeed noticeable that there is only one form of reply to which Dr. Salmond takes exception. “1 object,” he says (S. 4), “to being prayed for and prayed over. I object to having holy hands held up over me.” The Professor here shows himself more sensitive than his client. It is not prayers but votes at which the liquor traffic kicks; but Dr. Salmond is equally intolerant of both, and 1 for one am quite prepared to respect his weakness on the non-political side.
£. Not Imitating tha Deacon.
A good story is told of a deacon at a church meeting who, being reminded that his speech was exceeding the time limit, retorted that if he was ruled out of order he would put his concluding remarks in the form of a prayer. The sympathy which 1 have always felt for the deacon’s opponents on that occasion predisposes me to a favourable •consideration of the Professor’s request. His intimation that the effort would be wasted dispels any lingering doubt. I shad decline to perorate after the fashion of tine deacon —I shall raise no vain hands in fruitless prayer over a man- who with a far more intimate knowledge of his condition than I -can acquire declares himself to be past praying for. My form of prayer shall rather be to find in the obdurate Professor’s sophistries an incentive to harder work against that greedy, ■cruel, murderous, lecherous foe in which he is able to find so much to admire. If I had a holy hand at my disposal, I should prefer to use it in the manner described by one of the noblest of latter-day prophets: —‘ If I held here in my right hand,” said my honoured friend, Mr. J- G. Woolley,’“the vial of the wrath of Almighty God, I would pour it upon tho liquor traffic with a steady hand.’’ Even so, may my right hand ibe employed and not in pouring rose-water upon Dr. SaJmxmdi
8
CHAPTER II
“PROHIBITIONIST EXACCERATIONS."
Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labour; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take a little trouble to acquire it.—
Johnson.
He hath made a pit, and digged it,
And is fallen into the ditch which he made.—
Psalm 7.15.
7. Briefed for the Defence.
Dr. Salmond’s treatment of the facts of the liquor problem is characteristic of his whole attitude. There is no pretence of a comprehensive survey, a scientific analysis or a judicial summing up The Professoi is briefed for the defence; and it is not the elucidation of the truth nor even the establishment of any affirmative case, but the picking of holes in the case for the prosecution that is his sole concern Professor Brouardel, a distinguished French physician, saysthat ‘a erv of despair rises from the whole universe at the sight of'the disasters caused by alcoholism,” but the cry leaves Dr. Salmond apparently unmoved. His well-regulated emotions are not to be stampeded bv the sound. One has no right to complain of that, but it is surely a matter for surprise that so well equipped an intellect should disdain a conscientious enquiry into the extent of the evils in question before pronouncing judgment. Of course. Dr. Salmond objects to drunkenness. He declares it to lie -‘a prodigious evil”; and he even concedes that the £160,000,000 annually spent on strong drink in the United Kingdom “is certainly too much.” (S. 52.) But as to all these admissions "may we not ask. “Do not even the publicans the same?” And an impartial enquiry into the facts does not seem to be more remote from their intentions than it is from his.
8. Questions of No Interest to Dr. Salmond.
" hat is the proportion of human misery that must fairlv be debited to the liquor traffic, how many bodies and souls it dooms to destruction year by year, by what calculus a balance is to be struck between all this carnage, waste and ruin, and the pleasure of the moderate drinker, and by what logic the moderate drinker and the license voter can be acquitted of responsibility for the fruits of the tree which they themselves have planted, sheltered and nourished—these are matters in which Dr. Salmond takes no interest. He is out to smash the Prohibitionists, and the desire to convict them of exaggeration exhausts his interest in the evidence. That a sufficient residuum of appalling facts may remain to justify the case for Prohibition, in so far as any evidence can justify it, counts for nothing. The scientific methods " hi<’li 1 rofessor Salmond has learnt to apply to other brandies of inquiry, the love of truth as such, the disinterested determination to follow whithersoever she may lead in scorn of consequence, such things have no more place in _ his enterprise than in the arguments of a prisoners advocate in a criminal court.
e
'9. Old Bailey Methods.
An advocate who has no evidence to adduce on his client’s behalf must rest content with belittling the evidence for the prosecution, besmirching its witnesses, and excising the intrinsic absurdity of their story. No forlorn hope at the Old Bailey ever illustrated these devices in a more striking fashion than Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet. A number of allegations are cited which he attributes to the other side and which his skill and zeal as an advocate entitle one to assume wero not selected as the least favourable to his own case. Instead of adducihg a single scrap of rebutting evidence, the Professor meets these testimonies sometimes with “a priori” and irrelevant reasons why they are incredible, sometimes with a sweeping assertion, unsupported by anything more convincing than a sneer or a snort of defiance, that “the statements are loose and exaggerated.” (S. 33.) I propose to deal seriatim with the whole of the ten Prohibitionist exaggerations which Dr. Salmond treats in this contemptuoxis way, to show that the charge of inaccuracy recoils on his own head, and in so doing to provide so overwhelming a demonstration of the case against strong drink that the calling of further evidence would be unnecessary.
10. Caesar and Attila Versus Gladstone.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration, No. t.—“None of all these amazing deliverances is more frequently quoted than Gladstone’s, to the effect that drunkenness causes more misery than war, pestilence, and famine.” (S. 33.)
Even as the effect of the supposed statement is quoted by Dr. Salmond, the fact that the verb is in the present tense makes the whole of his interesting antiquarian excursus on the subject the idlest of irrelevances. If I say that “drunkenness causes more misery than war, pestilence and famine.” what is the sense of ranging over the “dark backward and abysm of time” and citing the ravages of Caesar, Attila and the Black Death to put me to shame? Those centuries have long since buried their dead, and I am really not concerned to enquire whether the Professor has counted the corpses correctly. But if the wars of Julius Caesar really did cost the lives of 500,000 men—and I mav observe that Plutarch’s estimate is twice that number for the Civil War alone —then that great man by a series of conquests which spread the noblest civilisation of his day over half the known world and.left its abiding mark upon the laws, the languages, and the institutions of the world as we know it nearly two thousand years later, only destroyed in some sixteen years as many lives as are destroyed every four years at most in the greatest Empire of to-day by alcohol alone.
11. What Gladstone Really Said.
But what was it that Mr. Gladstone really said? The occasion was a debate in the House of Commons on the oth March, 1880, of which there is fortunately a verbatim report. Mr. Burt had quoted an authority whose eminently respectable calling should insure from Dr. Salmond the respect he withholds from the Prohibitionists. Writing on “How to Prevent Drunkenness” in 18-55, with the horrors of the Crimean War in full swing, Mr. Charles Buxton, brewer, and M.P. said:
■“Add together all the miseries generated in. our times by war, famine and pestilence, the three great scourges of mankind, and they do not exceed those that spring from this one calamity.”
117
This was certainly amazing language from a brewer, and many of us would travel a long way to hear the like from any of the craft in New Zealand. Mr. Gladstone’s reference to the quotation was as follows ;
“It was stated just now that greater is the calamity and curse in. dieted upon mankind by intemperance than by the three o- reat historic curses—war, pestilence, and famine. 1 that proposition is true, but for whom? Not for European countries in general, certainly not for Italy or Spain or Portugal or Greece. Of France or Germany it would be ludicrous to assort that the effects of intemperance arc comparable with those of the three great historic curses. But it is true for us.”
12. “An Unfortunate Deliverance”—Very.
Now as to Mr. Buxton’s statement it is to be noted that it is expressly limited to our own times, while Mr. Gladstone’s is still further narrowed to onr own people. It would be a very moderate estimate to debit alcohol with 5,000,000 deaths in the United Kingdom during the last century (see r 18) : and clearly the three historic scourges combined could not touch this record. “Gladstone,” says Dr. Salmond, “was a great and noble man, much addicted to rhetoric. That unfortunate deliverance were well forgotten.” (S. 34.) Gladstone was certainly much addicted to rhetoric, but he had a plaguy way of being right whenever he dealt with statistics. Dr. Salmond is also much addicted to rhetoric, but without this compensation. Verily that unfortunate deliverance of his were well forgotten.
13. The Greatest Source of Evil.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 2.—“ There is no doubt that alcohol is the greatest source of evil in the world.” (S. 33.)
This statement is that of Dr. Leonard, who is not a New Zealand Prohibitionist, and probably like 90 per cent, of our authorities is not a Prohibitionist at all. Exact proof of the statement is of course impossible, but it is surely for anybody who disputes it to set up some alternative theory. It is characteristic of Dr. Salmond that he makes no such attempt unless his rhetorical reference in another context to Venus as more destructive than Bacchus (S. 31) can be deemed to be one. His dissatisfaction with the statement is the only argument adduced against it, but that argument is not conclusive. Standing alone the “ipse dixit” of the Doctor of Divinity cannot on such a matter be allowed to outweigh that of the Doctor of Medicine. Limited to preventible evils—with which alone practical men are concerned and to which alone Dr. Leonard was probably referring—his statement would in my judgment be unimpeachable. Some of the testimonies that follow will be found to justify the statement even in its broadest sense: —
TIMES. —The use of strong drink produces more idleness, crime want and misery than all other causes put together.
GENERAL 800 TH (1890).- The drink difficulty lies at the root of everything. Nine-tenths of our poverty, squalor, vice and crime spring from this poisonous tap-root. Many of our social evils which overshadow the land like so many upas trees would dwindle away and die if they were not constantly watered with strong drink. There is universal agreement on that point.
ARCHBISHOP TEMPLE. —Of all the preventible evils in this country intemperance is perhaps the worst.
SIR V GULL, M.D. —Alcohol is the most destructive agent that we are aware of in this country.
118
DR. G. ARCHDALL REID, Expert in Heredity (1901).—. . . intemperance perhaps the chiefest source of human misery.
DR. C. K. MILLARD, Medical Officer.of Health for Leicester (1902). —Speaking as a medical officer of health, I can say that if I were given the choice on the one hand of the evil of drink and on the other hand of all the other preventible influences adversely affecting the public health on which medical officers are at present concentrating their efforts, I would choose unhesitatingly the abolition of drink as being greater by far than all the others combined.
MR. JUSTICE DENMAN. —The sort of evidence I can give only goes to prove what no one denies, viz., that intemperance is the greatest curse and the most potent cause or misery from which this nation suffers.
BARON DOWSE, Irish Judge from 1872 to 1890. —The quantity of alcohol consumed in a district is the measure of its degradation.
JOWA SUPREME COURT, Lantz v. State, 2 lowa, 164.—“ There is no statistical or economical proposition better established nor one to which a more general assent is given by reading and intelligent minds than this: that the use of intoxicating liquor as a drink is the cause of more want, pauperism, suffering, crime, and public expense than any other cause, or perhaps it should be than all other causes combined.”
ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTIMONY (191 1).— “ From a sociological standpoint we are compelled, by incontrovertible evidence, to acknowledge that it (alcohol) is, of all causes, the most frequent source of poverty, unhappiness, divorce, suicide, immorality, crime, insanity, disease and death.” —“Catholic Encyclopaedia,” I. 276.
14. The Parent of Crime.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 3. —“Drunkenness is the parent ol every crime.” (S. 33.)
These words were used by Mr. Justice George at the Wexford Assizes in 1867. They would certainly be a gross exaggeration if applied to New Zealand, and intended to convey that all our crime was traceable to this one source. But there is clearly a difference between “every crime” and “all crime.” The first need not mean more than that crime of every kind is sometimes caused by drunkenness; the second would mean that every instance of every kind of crime originated in this way. It is, however, conceivable that Mr. Justice George used the words in the latter sense, since we find Mr. Justice Deasy declaring at the Armagh Assizes four years later that “Drunkenness is the parent of all the crimes committed in Ireland.” To what extent this extraordinary statement is true of England and New Zealand will appear under the next heading.
15. “The Prime Factor in the Production of Crime.”
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 4.— “ Seventy-five per cent, of all crime is due to the use of intoxicating drink.” (S. 33).
This statement is dismissed by Dr. Salmond on “a priori” grounds without a tittle of evidence as “simply preposterous, and as being beyond the range of possible ascertainment.” (S. 37.) This fine free style, unaccompanied by any knowledge of the facts or any desire to
119
know them, has immense advantages in allowing him to arrive promptly at the conclusion which he seeks. But possibly those who prefer reason to prejudice as a guide may attach more weight to such testimonies as follow:—
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COLERIDGE:
1 878. —Drunkenness is a vice which fills the gaols of England, and if we could make England sober we could do away with nine-tenths of the prisons.
1892. —At a moderate estimate something like 19-20ths of the crime that has to be tried in Courts is due to drink.
AIR. JUSTICE HAWKINS (afterwards Lord Brampton) (1883). Every day I live, the more I think of the matter, the more firmly do I come to the conclusion that the root of almost all crime is drink. I believe that nine-tenths of the crime in this country is engendered inside the doors of public-houses.
W. C. SULLIVAN, M.D., Medical Officer, H.M. Prison Service (1907). —Personal investigations directed to this matter in the English prisons indicated that about 60 per cent, of graver homicidal offences, and about 82 per cent, of minor crimes of violence could be attributed mainly to the influence of alcoholism.
Canon J. W. HORSLEY, Chaplain H.M. Prison, Clerkenwell (187686) estimates that 75 per cent, of crime as he has seen it in prison work may be "directly or indirectly attributed to intemperance.”
THOMAS HOLMES, late Police Court Missionary, and Secretary of the Howard Association. —75 per cent, of crime is in some way connected with drink.
CHIEF JUSTICE LILLEV, ex-Premier of Queensland (before 1897) —Constant observation during my professional work in England and this colony has founded in my mind the settled belief that the use of intoxicating liquor is the prime factor in the production of crime.
JUDGE DOWLING, N.S.W. (before 1898). —I have probably tried more criminal cases in New South Wales than any other man. I feel convinced that if nine-tenths of the colony’s publichouses were closed, I, as a criminal Judge, would soon have nothing to do, and the gaols of the country would be almost empty.
MR. JUSTICE HODGES, Victoria (1907).- —After close upon nineteen years and experience in the Criminal and Divorce Court, I can repeat what I said publicly some years ago, that drink is either directly or indirectly responsible for more crime, more sin, more domestic misery, than all other causes put together. It is appalling to not© the number of crimes that are traceable to drink, and more awful to sit in a divorce court and hear detailed squalor, poverty, domestic misery, and utter destruction of home life that results from liquor. I cannot say, for I do not know, whether Victoria is worse than other places, but if it is not there would he very little crime and very little poverty in the world if this cause were removed.
Mr. JUSTICE RICHMOND, N.Z. (18921. —Nearly two-thirds of the crime in this country is due to drink.
Sir JAMES PRENDERGAST, then Chief Justice of New Zealand. gave a similar estimate a year or two later.
120
Mr. C. C, KETTLE, S.M. (1908?).—At least 80 per cent, of the cases before the Court (the Auckland Police Court) arise directly or indirectly from drinking and the vices thereby developed.
Mr. PETER GARVIE, for many years Keeper of the Terrace Gaol, Wellington (1895) said 80 per cent, of the prisoners who had passed through his hands owed their fall to drink.
LORD AVEBURY (1902). —Crime may almost be said to be concentrated alcohol. (If 85.)
LORD ALVERSTONE, Lord Chief Justice of England (1909). After 40 years’ experience at the bar and 10 years as a Judge, I know as a fact that 90 per cent, of the crime of this country depends upon intemperance.
LORD LOREBURX, Lord Chancellor (1910). —At a public meeting on October 31st, Lord Loreburu quoted Lord Alverstone’s statement with approval.
It would be easy to multiply this evidence tenfold if space allowed. ■“I cannot help seeing,” said Mr. Justice Grantham in 1888, “what every other Judge has seen before, that drink is the great cause of the crime with which the Judges have to deal.” The testimonies of the Judges and other experts actually cited concur in assessing the proportion of crime due to drink at from 60 to 95 per cent. Yet Dr. Salmond dismisses as “loose and exaggerated” and even as “simply preposterous” a statement which falls a little short of a mean between the two extremes. “Who dare single out any one factor and determine its numerical proportion?” asks Dr. Salmond. (S. 37). Four Chief Justices and other Judges too numerous to mention have had the temerity to make the attempt, and their judgment is that Dr. Salmond’s client is the blackest criminal known to the modern world. What an ignorant, feather-headed, irresponsible and hopelessly biassed lot these Judges are! Dr. Salmond stands against them all—an “Athanasius contra mundum” —and puts their foolishness to shame.
121
CHAPTER 111
MORE "PROHIBITIONIST EXACCERATIONS.”
His mischief shall return upon his own head, And his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate. — Psalm 7.16
16. —The Robber of the Poor.
Prohibitionist Exaggerations No. 5 and 6. —“Drunkenness must be accounted the most prolific of all causes of pauperism.”
“75 per cent, of the occupants of our workhouses have become pensioners on the public either directly or indirectly through drink.” (S. 33.)
The second of these statements is quoted with substantial accuracy from a report furnished in 1869 to the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, England, by a committee appointed to deal with the question of intemperance. The bare mention of the name of the authority is enough to prove its freedom from Prohibition bias. It was composed of 3 Deans, 6 Archdeacons, 7 Canons, 3 Prebendaries, and the Prolocutor. The conclusion of such a committee deduced, as it says “from an extensive and minute inquiry prosecuted throughout the workhouses of the country, as well as from other authenticated statements,” is blown aside by Dr. Salmond in his lordly style as mere Prohibition froth. He calls no evidence, for his philosophic eye can see at a glance that so unpalatable a conclusion must be false. The following witnesses must also expect an equally short shrift: —
G. SOPER, Relieving Officer, Marylebone (1885). —From 20 years' experience as relieving officer in a very poor district, 1 have no hesitation in saying that at least three-quarters of thepersons applying to me are persons whose poverty has been caused by drunkenness.
E. G. Et ERSHALL, Master of Edmonton Workhouse (1885). —My own opinion is that i 0 per cent of it (i.e., pauperism) is caused by drink directly, and a further proportion indirectlv.
GENERAL BOOTH (1890). —Nine-tenths of our poverty . spring from this poisonous tap-root. (See % 13, )'
POOR LAW COMMISSION (1909). —A great weight of evidence indicated drink as the most potent and universal factor in bringing about pauperism.
Rev. H. \ an STAVEREN, ex-Chairman of Wellington Benevolent Trustees, and member of Wellington Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (1896 and 1911). —In 1896 this authority attributed 80 per cent, of Wellington pauperism to intemperance, and when 1 questioned him on the point in August, 1911, he said; You may say that I see no reason now to reduce the estimate.
A late Chairman of the Southland Charitable Aid Board confirmed the last estimate in a remarkable way by a statement (made a l' ea '' or after No-License came into force in Imercargil ) that if all Southland followed the example of Invercargill a reduction of 80 per cent, would be effected in the Board’s outlay in Charitable Aid.
122
17. Alcohol and Insanity.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 7. —“From 35 to 41) per cent, is ai fairly approximate estimate of the ratio of insanity (directly or indirectly) due to alcoholic drink.” (S. 33.)
Except for the immaterial omission of the words which I have added in brackets, this sentence is correctly quoted from a letter contributed to the “Times” of October 14, 1873, by Dr. Edgar Sheppard, who wasthen the Medical Superintendent of the great Asylum of Colney Hatch: “For twelve years,” he wrote,” 1 have here watched the development of the greatest curse which afflicts this country.” Then follows the estimate which Dr. Salmond derides under the impression that it is but another Prohibitionist hallucination. Had Dr. Sheppard been one of the inmates of Colney Hatch instead of its highest officer, he could not have been more contemptuously treated. To this high authority 1 will add three others :
MASSACHUSETTS BUREAU OF LABOUR (1895) investigated 1836 cases of insanity. In 330 cases no cause could lie ascertained ; of the remaining 1506, 526 or 35 per cent, were* due directly or indirectly to alee hoi.
T. D. CROTHERS, M.D.. Superintendent, Walnut Lodge Hospital, Hartford, Conn., U.S.A. (1905). —The latest and most authentic statistics show .... that over 50 per cent, of insanity. idiocy, and pauperism springs from this source.
THOMAS B. HYSLOP, M.D., Physician Superintendent to theRoyal Hospitals of Bridewell and Bethlehem (1907). —My own experience leads me to believe that alcohol is either a direct or an indirect factor in the causation of at least 50 per cent, of the cases of insanity.
Thus the statement which Dr. Salmond declares to be “loose and exaggerated” proves to be practically an exact quotation from one of the highest authorities on the subject, and to be considered by two others to be at least 20 per cent, under the mark. Dr. Salmond is entitled to our commiseration upon the fact that the same flagrant Prohibition bias which dominates the judicial bench seems also to have captured the men of science.
17 (a) Drunkards, Vagrants, Etc.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 8. —“The victims- of drink are 1,000,000 paupers, 700,000 drunkards. 300,000 criminals, 100,000 vagrants, and 70,000 lunatics.” (S. 36.)
Let me take them in order: —
1. Exclusive of casuals the number of paupers relieved in the United Kingdom in 1907-8 was rather more than 1,900,000. Instead of the 75 per cent, or more established in 16, we have only to debit liquor with 53 per cent, in order to account for the million paupers laid to its charge.
t If Dr. Salmond had taken, the trouble to ascertain that in 1909, an exceptionally sober year, there were 340,000 arrests for drunkenness in the United Kingdom, he would have seen that 700,000 is really a gross underestimate for the total number of drunkards in the country. Mr. Chamberlain once told a Parliamentary Committee that “by a turn of the screw” he could multiply the number of arrests ten times; and a retired London police officer estimated that only one in fifty of the actual cases of drunkenness come into the hands of the police.
i 6
3. The number of indictable offences reported in England and Wales in 1908 was 105,279, the number of non-indictable criminal offences,, 80,132 —a total of 185,411. It is there fore safe to say that there were at least 500,000 crimes com. mitted in the United Kingdom in the last three years. As liquor has been proved (If 15) the cause of from 75 to 90 per cent, of British crime, the estimate of 300,000 drinkmade criminals is accordingly a very moderate one.
4. The number of vagrants or casual paupers is, for various reasons, very hard to calculate. Mr. W. Hoyle considered that it might even equal the number of permanent paupers, but he accepted the proportion of 30 per cent, for the purpose of his calculations. The estimate derided by Dr. Salmon errs on the safe side by putting the proportion as low as 10 per cent., thus arriving at 100,000 as the number of drink-made vagrants.
5. The number of certified lunatics in the United Kingdom was 172,834; hut of the 150,000 mental defectives not so certified, 66,000 were declared by the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded to be in urgent need of control, either in their own interest or for the public safety. By the latter amount, at any rate, we may reasonably increase the total above given. Thirty per cent, of the aggregate thus arrived at, or 41 per cent, of the original total, will suffice to produce the total of 70,000. (See 11 17. 1
18. The Death Roll.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 9. —“Intemperance slavs 60 000 or as some believe, 120,000 lives yearly-.” (S. 33.)
-f + ? J 'o^°i™ a r T Ke li r -'- the founder a «d first President of the Society tor the Study of Inebriety, was once as inclined as Dr. Salmond to be sceptical on the point. But setting himself to work in 1876 “with the avowed object of demonstrating and exposing the utter falsity of the perpetual teetotal assertion that 60,000 drunkards died every 'year in the Tinted Kingdom, this eminent and almost unrivalled "authority came to the conclusion that though the number was excessive as an estimate of the deaths directly due to intemperance, it must be increased to the higher figure above mentioned in order to cover the mortality indirectly due to this cause. In a paper submitted to the Science Congress, Dr. Kerr accordingly announced his conclusion that the death-roll from drink was not 60,000 but 120.000 “40 500 dying from their own intemperance and 79,500 from accident, violence poverty, and disease arising from the intemperance of others ” The estimate which he sought to reduce had to be multiplied by two. As Di. Kerr calculation was based upon the figures of more than thirty years ago, it must be far below the mark now. It would be interesting to see Dr. Salmond revising the estimate with the same justice candour, and competence displayed by Dr. Kerr, and arriving at the conclusion that for the British Empire at the present time 200 000 would be a moderate estimate for the butcher’s bill of this “<mod creature of God.”
19. Drink and Divorce.
Prohibitionist Exaggeration No. 10 —“ Were it not for drink, the Divorce Courts might almost be closed.” (S. 33.)
To this “loose and exaggerated statement,” Dr. Salmond appends the comment that “the notion hitherto prevalent that it is a different form ot sensuality that leads to divorce is a vulgar error.” It is to be regretted that he should have indulged in this cheap, nasty, and ignorant sneer. The association of strong drink with Inst is one of the
*7
commonplaces of literature and of life. It is implied in one of the* Biblical texts that Dr. Salmond himself quotes (Hos. 4.11) as well as in several others. It forms the subject of a Latin proverb with which he must be perfectly familiar. And the fact is being constantly brought home in daily life even to men whose own lives are free from both curses. Alcoholic intoxication is declared by Dr. W. C. Sullivan to be ‘‘probably the cause of nearly half the crimes of lust,” and Dr. Arthur Newsholmo estimates that “nearly half of the infections with syphilis are received under the influence of alcohol.” Sir Victor Horsley remarks that “nothing is more notorious in medical practice” than the association in question, and emphasises that fact that “relatively small doses of alcohol'’ suffice to annul moral control and induce this infection* It must also be borne in mind that cruelty is a very common ground of divorce and that in England, to which the statement refers, it is still in general an essential part of the case when the wife is the petitioner. The potency of alcohol as a cause of cruelty is probably a matter which even Dr. Salmond would not venture to dispute. Judges have estimated the proportion of crimes of violence in England to be ascribed to this cause as high as 95 per cent.
28. What the Judges Say.
let me cite some authorities which bear directly upon the exact point at issue:—
1 31R JAMES HANXEN (afterwards Lord Hannen), President of the English Divorce Court, 1875 to 1891). —‘‘75 per cent, of the cases that come before me in the Divorce Court originate in drinking.”
2 SIR GORELL BARNES (now Lord Gorell), Judge of the English Divorce Court, 1892 to 1905, President 1905-9.—“1 am firmly convinced that if drink were eradicated this Court might shut its doors, at any rate for the greater part of the time.”
3. JUDGE REXTOUL, Judge of the City of London Court (1909): — "1 might indeed state that not only the Criminal Court but also the Divorce Court would have practically nothing to do were it not for the indulgence in intoxicating drinks. In tho majority of cases I have to deal with, the offenders owe their degradation not so much to positive drunkenness as to what is called tippling.”
4. LORD GORELL, ex-Prosident of English Divorce Court (1909). — “I believa that if tha effects of drink could be abolished altogether, the Divorca Court might almost doss its doors.”
5. MH. JUSTICE BIGHAM, President of the English Divorce Court from 1909 to date. —Lord GorelPs last-cited remark was put to this Judge when giving evidence before the Divorce Commission on February ‘23, 1910, and approved without qualification.
What does this evidence amount to? It means that three Presidents of the English Divorce Court whose experience covers the working of the Court for the last thirty-five years confirm—and two of them in precise terms —the statement which Dr. Salmond sneers out of court without evidence or argument. The statement is indeed really the statement made by • one President of the Divorce Court and corroborated by his successor, and it is substantially confirmed by their
‘Alcohol and the Human. Body, by Horsley and Sturge, 4th edition, t224. This invaluable book, which is now published at Is. net, should in the hands of every student of the liquor question.
IS
predecessor, fhe lato Lord Hannon. Yet Dr. Salmond has no hesitation in describing it as “loose and exaggerated.” Lord Gorell, stand down! Mr. Justice Bigham, kindly resume your seat! Here’s a Doctor of Divinity from Dunedin who knows a good deal more than you do about the business of the Court where you have between you presided for so many years, and he has no hesitation in declaring that your statements regarding the evidence that came before you are “loose and exaggerated.” Next, please!
20 (a) “Upon His Own Pate."
Having fulfilled my undertaking to examine each of the ten statements put forward by' Dr. Salmond as specimens of the “loose and exaggerated” language of the Prohibitionists, I may now summarise the result. In one case (No. y). the statement is ambiguous, and can only be supported in one of the two possible senses. In every other case the statement is confirmed by one or more of the very highest authorities on the subject in question, being either a direct quotation from such an authority, or as in No. 8. a simple inference from the statements of these authorities and official figures. It is absolutely unimpeachable bed-rock testimony of this kind that Dr. Salmond has •denounced as “loose and exaggerated” without the faintest conception of the authority upon which it rests. That he should have failed so ignominiouslv upon ground of his own choosing is a striking tribute to the accuracy of the party which he set out to demolish. It also proves that the air of oracular wisdom and pontifical authority which perhaps comes natural to a learned' Professor who believes himself to be dealing with ignorant and hysterical opponents is not a sufficient substitute for the care and research which their humbler faculties nave not disdained to bring to the investigation of evidence. Dr. Salmond’s blind, hasty and ill-informed partisanship does indeed illustrate the very weakness that he ascribes to his opponents. It is a pleasure to one of them to remind him of Burke’s warning to his constituents: “Gentlemen, it is not your fond desires or mine that can alter the nature of things.” It is not fanatical fancies, but the nature of things, that Dr. Salmond is running his head against; and hard as it :is, he must not be surprised that it gets the worst of the encounter.
126
CHAPTER IV.
FIGURES AND FALLACIES.
With figures sweet and strange.—
COLERIDGE.
“ Tinthly,” said the Philadelphia laryer, “ me client, being as good as a taytotaller, or it may be a derned sight better, niver touches annything stronger than whisky before midnight. Ilivinthly. the Foorth of Jooly is the most stupendious ivint in the annals of human freydom. Twilfthly, the pavement in this particular shpot is at laste ninety degrees off the perpendic’lar. Thirteenthly, me client doesn’t believe in vaccination and niver did. Fourteenthly, the Comity of Fifty is a most rayspictable body of men. Twenty-flrstly, if a man finds that the effect of the physcological index of the ilivation of the timperature of his abominable vishera .”
“• Avast Waivin’ Profissor,” said the Cnort; “no fur-rther midical ividence is rayquired. When there’s so inanny causes at wurruk. we could niver say the ina-an was dr-runk. An’ another time we hope the polis will be more car-reful not to inshoolt a rayspictable citizen who may happen to be tooken unwell on his way home.”
Dooley, Jr.
•21. “Not in the Official Reports.”
Instead of citing facts, figures or authorities to rebut the statements that he dislikes, Dr. Salmond contents himself with declaring that the necessary statistics are not available. Comprehensive official statistics compiled like a census by the method of simple enumeration are certainly not forthcoming Accuracy of this kind is reserved for the carnage of Caesar and Attila (S. 33), the records of which fail after the lapse of nearlj' twenty centuries in the one case and about fifteen in the other to excite in Dr. Salmond the scepticism that he so freely applies to contemporary estimates unfavourable to his case. *‘What is a drunkard?” he asks. “When is a man a drunkard? In what census are such facts recorded?” (S. 34.) Because a drunkard may not be easily defined and does not write himself down as such in the census, are we to infer that there is “no Rich a person”? Even Dr. Salmond’s scepticism would baulk at such a conclusion, yet the practical assumption underlies this part of his argument that whatever cannot be summarised in a census mav be effectually dismissed with a sneer.
When Gladstone was rousing England to a moral frenzy over the Bulgarian atrocities, th© scepticism of his great opponent—whose characteristic warning against enthusiasm is characteristically quoted with a qualified approval by Dr. Salmond (S. 25) —was scathingly depicted in a memorable “Punch” cartoon. Murder and mutilation are proceeding apace in the background. Disraeli is comfortably seated in front, studying a Blue-book, and Britannia vainly endeavours to claim his attention and help for the victims. “Bulgarian atrocities!” he replies; “can’t find them in the official reports!” Our Doctor of Divinity as he sits in his easy chair, engaged in the same futile study, with his back turned to the more hideous atrocities of the liquor traffic, would make an equally telling picture. “Liquor atrocities! Can’t find them in the official reports!”* It is wonderful how little you ran see even of the most obvious things if you turn your back upon them and bury 3 T our 'head in a Blue-book.
20
22. A Serious Misquotation.
“Well might the American Committee report,” says Dr. Salmond in justification of his scepticism, “that ‘no secure conclusions can be based on any statistics now in existence’ ” (S. 34). This passage throws a lurid light on Dr. Salmond’s capacity for misquotation. The Committee of Fifty, though grievously misled in this its first report by biassed agents, did not venture upon any such extravagant generalisation. Its words were that “no secure conclusions can be baaed on any such statistics now in existence, so much are the accessible statistics affected by temporary, local, and shifting conditions.” § Dr. Salmond’s omission of the word “such” conceals the fact that the reference is limited to the United States, where even a complete record of the arrests for drunkenness is, the Committee declares, unobtainable. The second omission conceals the special reason for considering the available statistics an insufficient basis for a secure conclusion, viz., that in t*, large, heterogeneous and rapidly changing a country figures are apt to bo a very fallacious guide in the comparison of one State or one period with another. This carefully guarded and strictly scientific statement Dr, Salmond, by the omission of all the qualifying words, transforms into a general denial of the capacity of statistics to elucidate the social effects of strong drink.
23. “The Appalling Statistics of Misery, Pauperism, and Crime.”
Against so absurd a conclusion it would be easy to cite an army of authorities, but I must limit myself to a very few, and they shall mostly be drawn from the country to which the Committee of Fifty refers. The very law courts have repeatedly taken judicial notice of the statistical connection which Dr. Salmond declares to be non-existent. Here are two quotations from considered judgments of the highest Court in America: —
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (1887), Mugler v. Kansas. 123 U S. Rep., p. 295. —It is not necessary, for the sake of justifying the State legislation now under consideration, to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and crime which have their origin in the use or abuse of ardent spirits. For we cannot shut out of view the fact established by statistics accessible to every one that the idleness, disorder, pauperism, and crime existing in the country are in some degree at least traceable to this evil.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT (1890). Crowley v. Christensen. 137 U.S. Rep., p. 91. —By the general concurrence of every civilised and Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram shop. The statistics of every State show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use ot ardent spirits obtained at these retail liquor saloons than to any other source.
24. A Daniel Come to Judgment!
The Massachusetts Bureau of Labour investigated the 26,672 offences committed in the State during the year 1895, and found that 84.41 per cent, of them were due directly or indirectly to intemperance. The same enquiry showed that 35 per cent, of the 1506 cases of insanity of which the circumstances could be traced were duo to thesame cause. (H 17.) As an absolutely official investigation this report is of
(§) See p. 3 of the Committee’s report, which was published in 1897 under the title of “The Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects.’’ by F. H. Wines and J. Keren.
21
great and almost unique interest. But for the purposes of the present argument it is still more pertinent that the very authority which Dr. Salmond invokes —the Committee of Fifty—conducted a similar enquiry on its own account, and published the results in a report on “The Economic Aspect of the Liquor Problem,” to which, as it was not of the same flagrantly one-sided character as the other, his attention does not appear to have been directed. The Committee’s investigation into 13,402 cases of crime resulted in an elaborate classification of the causes, of which the material parts may be summarised as follows: —
No. of Per
Cause. crimes. cent.
Intemperance alone 2,261 16 87
Intemperance the chief cause 1,918 14,31
Intemperance a contributing cause 2,515 18.76
Total cases wholly or partly caused by intemperance 6,694 49.94
This proportion of practically 50 per cent., though too high to please Dr. Salmond, is considerably below the Massachusetts estimate, the discrepancy being perhaps due to the.inclusion of drunkenness itself as a crime in the one case and not in the other. When Benedifck said he would die a bachelor, he did not know he would live to be married. When Dr. Salmond cited the Committee of Fifty to confirm his scepticism as to the possibility of statistical proof of the exploits of “wine,” he did not know that they had lived to conduct one of the most comprehensive and most damning statistical enquiries into this very point.
24 (a). — From 60 to 80 Per Cent.
Even the British Blue-books, however, are not quite so barren of information on the subject as Dr. Salmond supposes. He will hardly venture to deny that the following extract from the Judicial Statistics (Scotland) for 1908 is authoritative and conclusive ;
“The 103,000 persons charged with drunkenness and disorder, arising in the former entirely from the abuse of alcohol ana in the latter mainly so, provide the great bulk of the work for the constabulary and the courts. But 'it has been found that drink is an important factor in the causes of more* serious crimes. The bulk of assaults is brought about by it, and it is the common explanation of 589 sentences for cruelty to children. About 80 per cent, of charg3s for murder and culpable homicide ariso from intoxication. But the influence of drink extends into other classes of crime which are not generally supposed to be affected by it. From five different careful investigations made among persons guilty of crimes against property, it has been found that in 60 per cent, of them the criminal was not sober at the time of committing the offence. Teetotallers in this class rarely exceed 6or 8 per cent, of the whole.”
First the Judges, then the men of science, and now his last hope —the statistician — join the vile conspiracy contrived to shatter his case to atoms!
25. A Lecture In Logic.
Dr. Salmond’s second point provides him with a pretext for an academical digression on the subject of causation (S’. 34-39). His estimate of Prohibitionists’intelligence is so low' that one cannot be surprised that ho considers it necessary to remind them that “post hoc” is not necessarily “propter hoc,” that a thing may follow another with-
22
out being caused by it, and that several causes may co-operate to produce a joint effect. But does Dr. Salmond really think that Lord Alverstone, after forty years at the Bar and ten years on the Bench, needs to be reminded that human motives are rarely single and social causes are always complex ? Does he really think that such intellects as those of the late Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Richmond had not mastered the distinction between “post hoc” and “propter hoc”? or that men like Sir Victor Horsley, Dr. Sims Woodhead, and Sir Frederick Treves, whose professional life is devoted to the investigation—whether in the laboratory, the human body or the body politic—of problems involving at every step a complexity of concurrent causes, and depending for solution upon their separation and apportionment, need to be as gravely lectured in the elements of inductive logic as the rustic who supposed that Tenterdcn steeple was the cause of Goodwin Sands? fc there really no intellect but Dr. Salmond’s competent to fathom mysteries which are explained in every primer of logic, and are solved without any such aid by the native common sense of most intelligent men?
26. —“Intemperance a Rare Phenomenon.”
Another principle winch Dr. Salmond regards as of still greater ini portance is that of the Mutuality of Cause and Effect.
“A causes B and B acts causally on A; they go on mutually augmenting each other, and it is hard to tell which first takes up the parable Because a man drinks to excess, he has a miserable home, and the dreariness of his home sends him back to the bottle.” (S. 37.)
The principle is, of course, a real one, and it has its legitimate application to the drink question. But that it has any widespread application in New’ Zealand I have never been able to see.
That anybody who has not been almost as effectually screened from the realities of life as if he had spent his days in a glass-case, an enchanted thicket, or a strait-waistcoat should believe that in this free and youthful country, poverty is rather the cause than the effect of drunkenness has always seemed to me well nigh impossible. But Dr. Salmond professes this opinion. “Intemperance is a rare phenomenon,” he says (S. 381, “among such as have bright and happy homes, good and plentiful food and raiment, and some moderate resources of the soul.” My own experience is very different from Dr. Salmond’s. 1 have knowm far more men ruined in this country who have had all these advantages than who have not. When I recall some of the wealthiest, some of the ablest, and some of the most generous and lovable of our fellow-colonists who now lie in drunkards’ graves; when I remember that of all my school-fellows whom I know to have travelled the road to ruin, all have been sped by this curse, and that not one of them, so far as I know, lacked at the ■start all the advantages stipulated by Dr. Salmond, I am amazed that his experience shordd have been so different from mine, or his memory’ so bad. or his rhetoric so loose. lam still more amazed that he either fails to recognise that those who have all those blessings and are able to retain them are under any obligations to their less fortunate fellows, or at any rate that in a 68-page pamphlet devoted to the drink question he has not been able to give the faintest indication of what those obligations are.
26 (a). —Ben Tillett’s Dilemma.
But even if Dr, Salmond were right in this particular contention that would not appreciably help his client.
Sonic years ago an English Labour leader who visited this country ad(iresasoji audiences in Wellington and elsewhere as though our social conditions were essentially indistinguishable from those of Whitechapel.
130
In Wellington, as in Whitechapel, it was poverty that caused drunkenness and not vice versa. A direct attack on this position having proved, unavailing, it was next urged that as without drunkenness poverty may be a clean, brave, self-respecting and honourable thing, but associated with drunkenness it is apt to become squalid, cringing, base, dishonest, and incurable, wo ought to bo able to agree to a policy which would abolish the drink-sodden poverty conceded to be the most hopeless of all. “Whether poverty causes drunkenness or drunkenness causes poverty,” 1 argued, “how can either cause the other, if there is no drink?” To this argument for Prohibition, which evaded our point of difference and took common ground, I received no answer, and for the sufficient reason, as it seems to me, that it was unanswerable. If Dr. Salmond’s ingenuity is greater than that of Mr. Ben Tillett, I shall be glad to see what form it takes. How can a dreary home send a man back to the bottle if there is no bottle to go to?
27. The Causes of the Drunkard.
Dr. Salmond’s reference to the problem of the drunkard may be conveniently considered in relation with his own remarks on the subject of causation. He strongly objects to converting the drunkard into “society’s pet moral patient who is only to be pitied.” (S. 18.) This is Dr. Salmond’s pleasant way of gibing at those who recognise thslt the responsibility for drunkenness cannot be confined to the drunkard. Yet he himself insists that “always in social phenomena we have to deal with composite and complex causation.” (S. 37.) The drunkard is surely a social phenomenon which forms no exception to tho rule. His own idleness, extravagance, and weakness of will; a sociable disposition and the bad company into which it has led him ; a congenital taint, a nagging wife, or an otherwise unhappy home; the public-house which has been planted close to his home; the failure of the Licensing Committee to close that house for proved breaches of the law ; the failure of the electors to vote, as possibly he himself voted, for No-license—all these are causes which may have contributed to his downfall. In the future, the fascinating picture in which Dr. Salmond has painted the joys of moderate drinking may be a contributing cause with some who cannot go as far as he would have, them go without bettering his instruction.
28. The Moderate Drinker One Cause.
Philosophically the true cause of auy phenomenon is the sum of all the contributory factors. Practically we habitually treat as the cause any one of these contributory elements which particularly concerns the purpose we have in hand, and we are justified in so treating it if it is a “causa sine qua non,” an essential part of the events which have produced the phenomenon in question. The weakness, hereditary or acquired, of the drunkard himself; the accidents of his domestic life for which he may or may not be altogether to blame; the remissness of tho Licensing Committee; the ignorance or callousness of the moderate drinker and the licence voter —each of these things is a cause, because without it the result would not have happened. Where there is more than one personal cause, the normal and reasonable thing to do is to tax that person with the responsibility with whom you are face to face. To tell the drunkard that somebody else is to blame is a mistake which the Prohibitionist is just as little likely to make as Dr. Salmond himself. But to tell the moderate drinker or the licence-voter that somebody else is to blame would be equally absurd since they are respectively the persons for whom and by wdiom the traffic w'hich has done the work gets the licence to do it. It is because they refuse to commit this absurdity that Dr. Samond is so angry with the Prohibitionists. But despite his indignation, we are not going to make a moral pet of the moderate drinker any more than of the drunkard, and we have logic on our side as well as Christianity.
131
CHAPTER V.
THE TURK AND OTHERS.
Ye bloudie Turke, ye Hindoo milde.
Ye murthering Spaniarde, darke and wilde,
And all ye Paynim crewe
Could wel be made good Cristen men
And brought back to ye folde agen
With pyntes of British brewe.
Sum worshippe stoks, sum begge theyre bred,
Sum cut your throate, sum breake your hed,
And sum have sundrie wyves;
But draughtes of British heere, I ween,
Could dresse them al to godlie, dene
And peaceful Cristen lyves.
Old Ballad.
29. —Logic Extraordinary.
“The first serious misgiving as to the soundness of the Prohibition indictment arises,” says Dr. Salmond (S. 36), “from the reflection that the social ills referred to —crime, pauperism, vagrancy, lunacy are as prevalent, nay, more prevalent, in such lands as Spain. Italy, Turkey India, where drunkenness is rare.” Is Dr. Salmond quite candid here'--Was it really his first serious misgiving or was it his last flimsy hope, that was inspired by this portentous reflection? On one page he" is reading to the flower of English Judges and men of science a pretty lesson on the ABC of causation ; on the next page he affects serious misgivings as to the soundness of the contention that alcohol is responsible for most of the preventable misery of the British race, because he finds other races cultivating a substantial modicum of misery without it. This singular logic is faithfully reproduced in the parable that follows;
A family endowed by nature with an excellent constitution, and by art and industry with most of the normal essentials of a healthy and happy life is constantly suffering from typhoid fever and diphtheria. A doctor who .is consulted peremptorily orders the removal of a pig-stye that stands against the pantry, and the construction of a proper system of drainage and rubbish disposal to take the place of the fetid accumulation of refuse of all kinds that oozes and rots around the house. Before breaking away from a tradition winch is hallowed by long association, the householder desires a second opinion, and calls in Dr. Salmond. ‘There is not the slightest occasion to put yourselves about,” he advises. “I have been in to see your neighbour. He doesn’t keep a pig. and his drains are all that the Public Health Department could desire. Yet his wife has got the influenza and the baby is down with whooping cough, and the man himself has just broken his leg. And, besides, how mnch did thev bother about drains in Judaea, anyway?”'
25
30. —The Amiable Turk.
It is with the same cheerful irrelevance that Dr. Salmond seeks to divert attention from the awful part which alcohol plays in the degradation of the British race, by pointing out that other nations are degraded without it. Tho Turk, with his cruelty, his corruption, his religious fatalism, his polygamy, his positive genius for misgovernment, has for centuries oppressed some of the richest provinces in Europe into poverty and wretchedness, and still from time to time deluges considerable parts of them with blood. Does Dr. Salmond desire us to believe that tho Turk would have made a better job of it if lie had added the publichouse to the harem, the knife ami the rifle as an instrument of civilisation? Ur that 1 Ire re is a single defect in Turkish character or methods that would be improved by a course of alcohol P if so, Dr. Salmond should rejoice that it is in a fair way to be mended. The Koran forbids the drinking of wine, but it says nothing about spirits; therefore it allows the drinking of spirits—so argues the Moslem. The Christian arrives at the same conclusion from exactly opposite premises. The Bible allows the use of wine; wine includes spirits ; therefore the Bible approves the drinking of spirits. How instructive it is to sis' Moslem and Christian laying aside their differences in the common pursuit of an exegesis which will allow appetite to violate the plain teachings of their sacred writings!
31. —“Christianising” Turkey?
'The result at any rate is that in Turkey spirits are now consumed wholesale. As long ago as 1803, the Rev. 1,. S. Crawford, an American missionary who had taken a hand in organising a Benevolent Society at Broussa to cope with the distress of a very bad season, reported that ‘‘a careful enquiry into the cases seeking aid revealed the fact that in at least three-fourths of the families now suffering, strong drink had been directly or indirectly connected with their poverty.” English surgeons who served in the military hospitals of Turkey during her war with Russia in 1877 were amazed to see Turkish soldiers recovering from wounds and operations which they would have regarded as hopeless for the average British soldier, and they had no hesitation in ascribing it to the absence of the alcoholic taint. The duration of an immunity which must be an invaluable national asset in many other ways than that of military efficiency must depend upon the extent to which the Turk is able to resist the invasion of what even Dr, Salmond would hardly like me to call the Christianising influence of the liquor traffic.
32. —India and the Liquor Traffic.
Tim citation of India is an oven more unfortunate one from tho Professor’s standpoint. The chronic poverty of millions of its inhabitants, who are permanently camped on the very frontiers of starvation, their ignorance, their rigid system of caste, their racial and religious feuds, their degrading and often cruel and obscene superstitions, their incapacity either to govern themselves or to receive more than a thin veneer of Western civilisation —these are some of the difficulties which make the successful government of a country of 300 million people by a handful of foreigners, 5000 miles from their base, one of the wonders of history. Rut in what respect have all these difficulties and all the miseries which tho Government of India is endeavouring to mitigate been aggravated by causes which tho consumption of alcohol has eliminated or reduced in other parts of the Empire? And in what respect would the reformer’s task be lightened by the introduction of the liquor traffic? These questions, to each of which only one answer is possible, bring the matter to the test of causation, distinguish the “post” from the “propter,” and show the utter sophistry of the com-
133
parison. As to the second question—the relation of alcohol to the cause of reform in India —the point is unfortunately beyond the pale of speculation.* Along with the statesman and the soldier, the missionary and the Bible, Christian England has after her kind poured in the strong drink which she believes to be needed to gladden the heart of man. Let a former Archdeacon of Bombay testify as to the result:—
“We have made 100 drunkards for every Christian. . The Hindoos are temperate, the Mahometans are abstainers, but the Christians, so-called, are undermining both. When a man is seen drunk, the saying is, “That man has left Mahomet and gone to Jesus.”
33. —A Satire on Christianity.
Did the imagination of Swift ever conceive a more hideous satire upon Christianity? If Dr. Salmond had heard what Archdeacon Jeffreys heard, would even his complacency have found a sufficient discharge for his moral responsibility as an Englishman and a Christian in making these victims of Christian example feel that “special abhorrence” (S. 18) of the drunkard in which he asks us to follow the lead of the Prophets and the Apostles? Would even he have been prepared to argue as though the Cana miracle were the first and last word of Christianity upon the liquor question? Would even he have been prepared to repeat his sneer at the Koran (S. 15) for a prohibition which has been an incalculable , boon to the Moslem world, but is gradually being sapped by Christian influence?!
Through the great sinful streets of Naples as I past,
With fiercer heat than flamed above my head.
My heart was hot within me; till at last
My brain was lightened when my tongue had said
“Christ is not risen!”
This same cry of despair must surely have been wrung from the sore heart of many a Christian as he contemplated in “the great sinful streets” of Bombay or Calcutta the colour that is given to the religion of Christ in the eyes of the heathen by the curse of strong drink with which it is associated. The champion of the liquor traffic would surely be wise to leave India alone.
34. — Italy Follows France.
As for Spain and Italy, centuries of misgovernment, in which England might have had a full share if the Invincible Armada had justified its title, have combined with the quick southern passions to render life as insecure in large areas of those countries as it could
‘Since the Professor’s pamphlet w-as published the following cablegram went the round of the Empire’s press :
INTEMPERANCE IN THE PUNJAB PUNJAB, March 6.
The Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, speaking here to-dav, denounced in the strongest terms the intemperance prevalent in the Central Punjab, especially among the Sikhs, lire practice is widespread, involving Prince and peasant, educated and uneducated, in a common ruin, and is largely attributable to the increased prosperitv among landholders and labourers. —Reuter.
fit may also be said of his (Mahomet's) followers that they, for the most part, have obeyed his command [to abstain from wine], at least in the country districts, and that the exceptions to the rule are directly or indirectly attributable to the influence of Christians. — Westermarck; “Origin and Development of Moral Ideas.” 11., 342.
2 7
rarely be in any English community not cursed by alcohol. But to suppose that Spain and Italy have no liquor problem of their own, or that their other troubles are not aggravated by the common enemy of the race, is a sheer delusion. A generation ago France was held up to the world as the model country in which the wide dissemination of a taste for light wines had, as it were, inoculated the nation against any serious danger from alcoholic infection. Gladstone’s emphatic exclusion of France from the number of drink-cursed countries in 1880 (H 11) could not be repeated to-day. France has since graduated from light wines to the deadliest of spirits, and her manhood, womanhood, and childhood are now’ in the grip of a terrible fo© which may wipe her off the map of Europe without the firing of a single German gun. Italy, and in a lesser degree Spain, appear to be heading in the same direction. Between 70 and 74 per cent, of the crime of Northern Italy is ascribed to intemperance by the Director of the Asylum for the Insane at Florence. The problem is certainly less acute in the Southern districts, where spirit-drinking is less rife, yet the subject is gravely exercising the public mind all over the land, and, according to an article published in the “Lancet” in September, 1910, “Alcoholism, by the admission of all parties in the State, has extensively and intensively become a national scourge ‘pari passu’ with the increase of population and of industrial activity.”
35. —Spain’s Downward Path.
Spain does not appear to have travelled quite so far as Italy on the downward path. Fifty years ago the Spaniards were probably the most temperate people in Europe, and their reputation still stands high, but spirit-drinking has now obtained a considerable hold. It is a significant fact that one of the pledges administered by a Temperance Society organised in Southern Spain in 1889 was against the use of spirits only, which the founder saw to be the chief cause of the increasing drunkenness among the people. In 1893 the American Consul at Cadiz reported that “the greater part of the assaults against persons are made while one or both of the parties concerned are under the influence of drink,” and that “drinking is without doubt the cause of 50 per cent, of the seductions and prostitution of Spain.” The intimate relation between licentiousness and wine-drinking at the Carnival is familiar to everybody. A few years ago an extraordinary reduction in crime was effected by a partial experiment in Sunday closing, but the saloon influence was strong enough to repeal the law’ and send the crime rate up again. Dr. Salmond should be pleased to see that “our heaven-given freedom” to drink as we please (S. 56) is better appreciated in Spain than in New Zealand; yet even in that happy land there is a liquor question which, as in Franc© and Italy, though in a smaller degree, grows in seriousness every day. “Alcohol is our great enemy,” says the Duke of Albania, “a unique enemy, vigorous and terrible.”
135
CHAPTER VI
THE PROVINCE OF GOVERNMENT.
The end of government is the good of mankind.—
Locke.
Government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it . . . The moment you abate anything from the full rights of men, each to govern himself, and suffer any artificial positive limitation upon those rights, from that moment the whole organization of government becomes a consideration of convenience.—
Burke.
There is no one thing that the mind of man may lawfully desire and delight in, that is less understood and more fatally mistaken than the word libertu ; which though no man is so mad as to say it consists in being absolved from all obligations of law—which would give every man liberty to destroy him -yet they do in truth think it to be nothing else than not to be subject to those laws which restrain them from doing somewhat they have a mind to do.—
Clarendon.
35. —A More Congenial Field.
An exceptionally interesting part of Dr. Salmond’s argument is that which is concerned with the functions of the State. The prorince of government is a congenial subject for a mind with a turn for abstract speculation, and the Professor’s dialectical acumen takes its full fling in a field which offers fewer opportunities than the treatment of historical or contemporary evidence for that tragedy of science of which Huxley speaks from sad experience—the arising of some inconvenient fact to shatter a brilliant theory. It is hardly necessary to sav that Dr. Salmond does not at this time of day venture to assert tile old doctrine of laissez faire. He declares, as most men of common sense do in these days, that "this doctrine will not bear examination” (S. 40). Vet when he states that "Prohibition would be most effectively barred out by the doctrine which limits the duties of Government to a kind of police regulation of the community,” he is betrayed into too sweeping a statement by his im]>erfect appreciation of the antagonism between the liquor traffic and the preservation of law and order. In a land where the Legislature® are not much addicted to social experiments, and where the Courts are naturally still less favourably disposed to any kind of innovation, it has been judicially laid down that the right to prohibit the liquor traffic is a necessary incident of the police power. Such was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the celebrated case already referred to (1| 23) of Mugler v. Kansas, brought to determine the validity of the prohibition law of Kansas under a Federal Constitution which forbade any of the States to deprive a citizen of liberty or property without due process of law.
2 9
37.—The Scope of the Police Power.
The judgment, which was that of seven judges, there being only one dissentient, contained the following passage: —
There is here no justification for holding that the State, under the guise merely of police regulation, is going to deprive the citizen of his Constitutional rights ; for we cannot shut out of view the fact, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact, established by statistics accessible to everyone, that the disorder, pauperism, and crime prevalent in the country are in some degree at least traceable to this evil. . . . The principle that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . has never been regarded as incompatible with, the principle, equally vital, because essential to the peace and safety of society, that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner’s use of it shall not be injurious to the community.
It has thus been decided by a Court which has some claims to be regarded as the greatest, as it is certainly the most powerful, in the world, that-a reasonable construction of the police power of a modern State must include the right to prohibit the liquor traffic; and as "“liquor traffic” is a vague term, let me add that the Kansas law even went so far as to prohibit a man from manufacturing liquor for his own use. It was naively contended by counsel for the brewers who instituted the proceedings that for all the Court knew they might merely have desired to manufacture for their own use, and that to prohibit that went beyond a reasonable exercise of the police power. But the plea was overruled, and thus the point which is justly regarded as the most drastic feature of our new Licensing Act was expressly held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be within the scope of the police power.
38. —The Public Good the Supreme Law.
“It may be some protection against misunderstanding,” says Dr. Salmond. “if I here say explicitly that I maintain the paternal and ethical view of the function of Governments. If only it be safeguarded adequately against abuse and misunderstanding, I do not shrink from the maxim: ‘Salus populi suprema lex’ ” (S. 40). In other words, Dr. Salmond concedes that the public welfare is the paramount consideration to which the rights of the individual must be subordinated. He only stipulates for safeguards against abuse and misunderstanding, and he proceeds to provide them. “I affirm,” he declares, “that there are limits to the moral functions of legislation, and that prohibition is bevond these limits” (S. 42). An appearance of precision is given to this part of his argument by its division into seven heads, but the advantage is a matter of appearance only. No logical principle governs the classification. The seven heads overlap one another in hopeless confusion, and some of them bear no clear relation to the principle which Dr. Salmond has declared to be paramount. We are left in doubt whether some of the proposed safeguards and conditions are really intended to be deductions from the principle of expediency, or to assert an independent and conflicting authority.
39. —A New Commandment.
Where, for instance, does Dr. Salmond get the proposition which he puts in the place of honour, viz., that “prohibition must be limited to acts and usages which are inherently bad” (S. 42) ? He does not tell us from what Sinai he was commissioned to bring down this new
137
commandment to men, nor does he make any attempt to deduce it from the principle that the public good is the supreme law. He treats the proposition as having an original and axiomatic force which supersedes the best of expediency, though he does not allege, nor can I discover, any basis, either in principle, in reason, or in authority, for such a course. It is significant that the first two statements which the Professor adduces in support of his new commandment are demonstrably false. “We do not hesitate,” he says, “by prohibitory laws, to attack sweating or combines which artificially raise the prices of the necessaries of life, because sweating and combines are rotten with the wickedness of avarice” (S. 42). It is indeed a singular assumption that the object of a law of this kind is the moral reformation of the men whom it seeks to restrain, or even that their action must be proved to be immoral before the case for restraint is made out. Is not the whole of commerce saturated with avarice, and is not the State content to tolerate it as long as it injures nobody but the men themselves? It is not avarice, but cruelty and oppression, at which the State aims in its laws against sweating and combines. It is not the reformation, nor even the punishment, of the immoral that it seeks, but only the protection of the weak. In other words, the test is not the inherent immorality of the practices in question, which is quite illogically and illegitimately introduced by the Professor in the first of his subsidiary propositions, but the broad principle of the general good, from which, after paying it a verbal homage, he breaks away as soon as he gets to business.
40. —A Double Blunder.
The second of Dr. Salmond’s statements in support of his theory that '‘Prohibition must be limited to acts and usages which are inherently bad,” is even more unfortunate than the first. “We prohibit gambling,” he says, “because the gambling habit is (of an) essentially depraved moral character” (S. 42). Here he makes one incorrect statement and supports it by another. We do not prohibit gambling, and such legislation as has been passed to check it is not based upon the assumption of its essentially depraved moral character. In the public opinion of the country, as expressed by its legislation, gambling is not immoral, or there would not be special provisions for sanctioning and encouraging it. Gambling, through the totalisator, is encouraged by the Legislature. Gambling in general is not discouraged, except that a gambling debt is made irrecoverable by process of law; but certain forms of gambling and certain inducements thereto are prohibited. The criterion throughout is plainly not the immorality of gambling, or any particular form of it, but its effect upon society and the adequacy of legislation to suppress it. We are thus again brought back from the principle which Dr. Salmond has evolved from his own inner consciousness to the broad principle of the public good, from which he has broken away.
41. —Fire, Firearms, and Fire-Water.
Dr. Salmond proceeds“We prohibit a man lighting a fire wherever he likes, but do not prohibit his lighting a fire. We prohibit a man discharging firearms in the thoroughfare, but we do not prohibit their discharge” (S. 42). This is a delightful sample of logic-chopping. There is an apparent inconsistency between the treatment accorded to fire and firearms by the legislature and that which the Prohibitionist desires to extend to fire-water. But the inconsistency disappears as soon as we look behind the verbal veil to the common ground of the public action taken or proposed in each case. That common ground is to be found in the principle by which Dr. Salmond has declared his willingness to abide—the supremacy of the public good. The discharge of firearms in a public place is prohibited because it is inconvenient
138
and dangerous. Their discharge is not universally prohibited, becausethe inconvenience and danger of their use in improper places and at improper times is more than counterbalanced by the general advantages of their legitimate use. Should the balance incline the other way, should after all the regulations and restrictions that human ingenuity can devise the evil wrought by firearms be proved to exceed the good, then, but not till then, will the time for abolition have come. The case with regard to fire is identical. At present our civilisation could not proceed without it. If in the future, by reason of the intrusion of some inflammable gas into the atmosphere, or some chemical change in another element, a spark might set the whole world in a blaze, we may have to put fire on the prohibited list. It is the public safety that must determine in each case the precise degree of regulation or prohibition that any dangerous practice demands.
*2. —The Professor’s Confusion of Legal and Moral Wrong.
It may indeed be said that at least half the field of modem legislation is concerned with the prohibition of acts which have originally no moral stigma attached to them. To keep pig-styes in a borough, to spit on the pavement, to build a dwelling house on a section that has not the prescribed frontage, to keep a shop open after the prescribed hour, to employ a workman when another of a class to which the law gives the preference is available —these instances, and hundreds more, could be cited of prohibitions which presuppose no moral depravity in the acts prohibited. Such is the trend of an immense mass of modern legislation of which in general Dr. Salmond expresses his approval. The division of offences into “mala in se” and “mala prohibita”—the things which are prohibited because they are bad, and the things which are bad because they are prohibited—does indeed date back to the beginnings of English law, and doubtless to a much earlier period. The distinction, though no longer of any technical importance, is practically illustrated by the legislation of every session. Yet Dr. Salmond rests the chief weight of his case upon a proposition which completely ignores it, and he actually assures us that “the act we prohibit must first be judged m itself bad” (S. 44), in other words that the “malum in se” is all that the State has any right to prohibit.*
43. —The Liquor Traffic and the Salus Populi
How, then, does the case stand with regard to the Liquor Traffic when we apply the test of the “salus populi,” and endeavour to strike a balance between its good and its evil deeds P For centuries the nations have been trying to regulate the traffic, and during the past century, when these efforts have been better organised and more sustained than at any previous time, it has been a greater curse than ever. The offset to the murder and the lust, the robbery and the waste, the poverty and the disease, the shame and the heartbreak which follow in its train is the carnal and purely selfish pleasure of those who can indulge with moderation —an indulgence which, if it is not either casual or almost infinitesimal, is now proved by science to involve some permanent injury to the consumer, and in many cases to his posterity also. The traffic, on such evidence as that which has been summarised
‘For a clear statement of the distinction between moral wrong and legal wrong, which Dr. Salmond will be proud to accept .as authoritative, I refer him to “Jurisprudence,” 3rd. ed.. p. 182. by J. W. Salmond, Solicitor-General of New Zealand. Dr. Salmond objects to “the notion that the shortest way to the millennium lies through the Crown Law Office” (S. 58), but he will not deny that that office is at present a very good place to go to for a legal opinion.
32
above, stands condemned to-day at the bar of civilisation, and the only thing that can win it a reprieve is the discovery of some stricter form of regulation, some novel and more effective safeguard which may turn the balance of convenience in its favour. In his long and eloquent plea oji behalf of a client whom he realises to be in sore straits, Dr. Salmond cannot find room for a single hint as to the reforms which may entitle it to a further period of probation. Such purely negative advocacv is powerless to avert the day of doom.
44. —The Natural Right to an Artificial Product.
“Prohibition stands condemned as involving a serious outrage against the natural rights and liberties of individuals, and it contemptuously disregards the claims of dissenting minorities” (S. 54).
If the previous argument was so novel as to tempt one to give Dr. Salmond the sole credit as its true and original inventor, its successor is as old as the hills. Perhaps it is for this reason that his treatment of it is so brief that we aie not allowed to hear what Nature has got to do with the case. Where is the natural right to so highly artificial a product as fermented or distilled liquors? Who gave it? And what is its sanction? The natural right of the primeval savage was doubtless to appropriate such beer and whisky as kind Mother Nature had provided for him in the fields or the woods, to drink it and to be knocked on the head by the next savage who came along with a stronger arm, a bigger club, or a less fuddled brain than his own. But surely so precarious a privilege hardly deserved the melodious tribute of a single one of the Professor’s eloquent sentences. And the moment the savage required the protection of society to secure him in the enjoyment ot this or any other privilege, it could only be upon the terms which Society itself elected to impose. In other words, the .Magna Charta of the drinker is the creation not of Nature but of Society, and the authority which granted it is free to vary or revoke it at pleasure.
45. —“Our Haaven-Civen Freedom.”
If we are not to be permitted, using our heaven-given freedom, to determine tor ourselves what we shall eat and what we shall drink, and in what forms and measures we shall employ the natural bounties of the Creator, given by Him for our sustenance and comfort, is there not an outrage attempted on our natural freedom?” (S. 56).
This liberty to eat and drink what we like, and as and when we like, is not merely the gift of Nature ; it comes straight from Heaven. ,\nd yet, unless improving upon the theory of the poet, who declared that “God made the country and man made the town,” we are to hold that God provided man with his appetite, but the Devil provided him with his reason and conscience—that God created intoxicating liquors, but the Devil made human society—how can we deny the right of human society, under the guidance of reason and conscience, to take the necessary measures for its own improvement, and in the course of the process to decide whether or not the manufacture and sale of intoxicants conduces to that improvement ? Dr. Salmond evidently approves of the prohibition of 1 'opium and other dangerous drugs” (S. 11). Neither his heaven-given freedom nor his natural liberty rises in rebellion against the interference. He does not complain in these cases of an impious attempt to set limits to the natural bounties of the Creator. Yet the procedure in the two cases is identical, the ground of the State’s action is identical, and a consensus of expert opinion would doubtless pronounce opium to be a less dangerous drug than that which Dr. Salmond champions. In prohibiting opium Society inter-
33
venes to destroy the freedom of its members to destroy themselves and one another by the use of an article which produces that effect without any commensurate 1 benefits. How Dr. Salmond reconciles this treatment of the good things that God has provided for us with the theory of indiscriminate acceptance he fails to explain. The fact seems to be that he is quite prepared to allow the State to pick and choose among, the objects of God’s bounty when the choice coincides with his own tastes, but he sets up the ridiculous canon of indiscriminate acceptance's soon as something is challenged which he is not prepared to forgo.*
46. —Liberty an Impossible Guide.
It is unfortunately impossible to dwell on this tempting branch of the subject, and I must take leave of it in a quotation from one of tlu* coolest and most hard-headed of modern thinkers. “The world,” Abraham Lincoln said, “is badly in need of a good definition of liberty.” Dr. Salmond, of course, attempts no such definition. Liberty for him is a thing to swear by and to wax eloquent about, but not to define or analyse. Vet his eloquence is surely .no better fitted than that of Mill “On Liberty” to survive the powerful argument directed against the latter by the late Mr. Justice Stephen, which he himself summarised as follows: —
“If the word ‘liberty’ has any definite sense attached to it, and if it is consistently used in that sense, it is almost impossible to make any true general assertion whatever about it, and quite impossible to regard it either as a good thing or a bad one. If, on the other hand, the word is used merely in a general popular way without attaching any distinct signification to it, it is easy to make almost any general assertion you please about it ; but these assertions will be incapable of either proof or disproof, as they will have no definite meaning.”—“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” p, 184.
The Professor’s eloquent paeans in honour of the Divine right to drink are thus reduced to a mere Sirens’ song, “musical,” it may be, “as is Apollo’s lute,” but as remote from philosophy and statesmanshipand as destitute of practical guidance as “the blessed word Mesopotamia” itself.
47. —An Alarming Dilemma.
There is one time-worn and frequently-exploded fallacy to which it is surprising to find so expert a controversalist as Dr. Salmond resorting. “It is a good test,” he says (S. 43), “of the' soundness of any principle of thought or action to ask: How far will this carry-us if we work it out with logical consistency*'” If the traffic in intoxicants is to be prohibited because of its moral dangers, why not equally' prohibit silver and gold, competition and horse-races, theatres and novels? Wehad previously been told that “in private life there are many problems of conduct, not admitting of solution in a theoretic way, but manageable enough to good sense and to the tact born of experience. So also is it in our corporate life” (S. 42). Yet Dr. Salmond allows no such thing as corporate tact, or common sense or discrimination when on the next page he takes the high “a priori” road to prove by a “reductio ad absurdum” the unreasonableness of Prohibition. If the State prohibits “wine,” why should it not prohibit the things above-mentioned ? And why, let me add, should it not also prohibit corn and oil, tea, tobacco, and even cold w’ater? If it refuses to license bookmakers, why should it not
*For an examination of the “good gift of God” theory from theScriptural standpoint, see Hif 104-6.
141
prohibit lawyers and professors and clergymen? In short, if the State prohibits one thing that is not inherently bad, w T hy should it not prohibit everything? Such is the alarming dilemma with which we are gravely confronted. Yet a far duller dialectician than Dr. Salmond would he able to see that the prohibition of a thing that deserves to be prohibited is no more a reason it) public than in private life for prohibiting a thing that does not deserve to be prohibited, and that in every case the issue must be determined according to the supreme principle of which Dr. Salmond professes himself an adherent by balancing the good and the evil of the prohibition proposed.
48. —“Vicarious Reprobation.”
Dr. Salmond’s fallacy was duly guyed by Sydney Smith in his famous essay on “The Fallacies of Anti-Reformers” :
“A measure is to be rejected for something that by bare possibility may be found amiss in some other measure! This is vicarious reprobation; upon this principle Herod instituted his massacre. It is the argument of a driveller to drivellers who says: ‘We are not able to decide upon the evil when it arises; our only safe way is to act upon the general apprehension «f evil.’ ”
This is harsh language, and I will not make the matter worse by citing the passage trom the same writer’s “Noodle’s Oration,” in w'hich the fallacy is further exemplified. But the treatment of the same fallacy by 7 another master of argument and humour is worth quoting, because his illustrations approach very nearly to the very matter in hand. Huxley had far less sympathy with the general policy of State interference than is professed by Dr. Salmond, but he was too candid to rely upon any such imaginary principles for limiting the activities of the State as those to which Dr. Salmond appeals, or to refuse to admit ■ the fallacy of the process of “reductio ad absurdum”:—
“It is urged, I am aware, that if the right of the State to step beyond the assigned limits is admitted at all, there is no stopping it; and that the principle which justifies the State in enforcing vaccination or education will also justify it in prescribing my religious belief, or my mode of carrying on my trade or profession; in determining the number of courses I have for dinner, or the pattern of my waistcoat. But surely the answer is obvious, that on similar grounds, the right of a man to eat when he is hungry might be disputed, because, if you once allow that he may eat at all, there is no stopping him until he gorges himself and suffers all the ills of a surfeit. In practice, the man leaves off when reason tells him he has had enough; and in a properly-organised State the Government, being nothing but the corporate reason of the community, will soon find out when State interference has been carried far enough.”—Essay on “Administrative Nihilism.”
Huxley and Sydney Smith are thus at one in maintaining that each case must be judged upon its own merits, and their arguments justify ns in inferring that Dr. Salmond’s tactics prove nothing but the 'weakness of bis own case.
35
CHAPTER VII.
FEARS, FANCIES, AND FAIRY TALES.
By their fruits ye shall know them St. Matthew 7.16.
Of the five crimes, the taking of life, theft, adultery, lying and drinking, the last is the worst because it leads to all the others.—
Buddha
49. The Three Test Questions.
That master of analysis and common sense whom I have previously quoted—the late' .Mr. Justice Stephen—was not prevented by his Conservative politics from sharing Huxley’s scorn of the idea of invoking any abstract principle to limit the activity of the State. As we have seen (H 46) he regarded Dr. Salmond’s “heaven-given liberty” as a mere “ignis fatuus.” The promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice were to Sir J. F. Stephen legitimate and intelligible objects of government whereas the promotion or protection of “liberty” was not. In lieu of any abstractions he suggested the following practical tests for any proposed interference by the State with individual liberty—
1. Is the object for which the compulsion is proposed a good one?
2. Is the compulsion proposed likely to be effective?
3. Will it be effective at a reasonable cost?
“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” p. 137.
These questions spem to cover the whole ground, and to do so in a. simple, convenient and scientific way. Dr. Salmond’s attempt if indeed he can be said to have made any attempt, to prove that in the present case the first of these questions should be answered in favour ■ot the liquor traffic can hardly have convinced even himself. But the principal w-eight of his argument is devoted to the last two questions. Would Prohibition be effective? and at a reasonable cost?
50. "Prohibition Will Work Marvels."
“Prohibitory Legislation is inexpedient,” says Dr. Salmond, “when there is a serious danger of creating as great or even greater evils than such as we are seeking to remedy.” (S. 46.) This raises the third 1 Stephen s test questions above quoted. Will the benefit, -of Prohibition be purchased at too great a cost? Dr. Salmond’s admissions on this point should be quite enough to convince anv unbiased reader. His own bias against Prohibition is revealed in every page of his pamphlet, fet even he is constrained to make this admission:
“Ves, Prohibition will work marvels. The house will be swept and garnished ’i on will have a fine tale to tell of lessened crime ot better food and clothing, of heavier savings at the bank’ of new carpets and hangings, and of smaller numbers of miserable men and women at street corners and that is
This 18 a wonderful admission from so thorough-niced a partisan jOd it entirely absolves mo from the necessity of marshalling the evi’ /fence from our own .No-Licence districts which testifies to the extra'
3^
ordinary success of the abolition of the open bar in every one of them. When even Dr. Salmond concedes that “Prohibition works marvels” in the way of lessened crime and the rest, the point is indeed beyond dispute.
51. “Swept and Garnished.’
Dr. Salmond’s admission also disposes us to enjoy in a truly Christian spirit the sermon, the prophecies, and the fairy-tales by which he seeks to discount its effect. The text of his sermon is that which Macaulay applied to the re-action following upon the Puritan “regime”— the parable of the unclean spirit which was driven out of a man, but afterwards returned with seven other spirits more wicked than himself to find the old tenement “empty, swept, and garnished.” The superficial character of Dr. Salmond’s acquaintance not merely with the liquor problem, but also with the Scriptures is well illustrated by his treatment of this parable. In the first place the mistake made by those who expelled the devil of drunkenness is, he says, that “the: devil had been forcibly ejected, had not gone out in a voluntary manner; there was no moral volition of a reformed heart behind the external reformation.” (S. 48.) If the summary and unceremonious method which the Prohibitionists propose to employ upon this devil is wrong, then they err in very good company.
“They brought unto him many possessed with devils,” we are told of Christ on one occasion (Mat. 8, 16) “and he cast out the spirits with a word.” There is nothing here to suggest the process of circumlocution and conciliation by which Dr. Salmond would like us to approach the liquor devil and get him to move on in the course of a century or two if it doesn’t suit him to move just now. “Casting out” is indeed the common expression employed in the Gospels; and the method is that of forcible ejection. The nearest approach to an exception that I can find is the case of the Gaderene Demoniac whose unclean spirits prayed that they should not be sent out of the country,, but might be allowed to enter into the herd of swine. The prayer was, granted, but the concession of a choice between exile and drowning cat. hardly he called a very liberal recognition of the voluntary principle. In allowing the demon of alcohol the choice between No-Licence and. Prohibition, are not the people of this country equally generous?
But if it is permissible to drop metaphors for a moment, may 1 ask Dr. Salmond how the demon is ever to get back? It is easy tc romance about what the evil spirit will do if he finds the house “empty" on his return. It is easy to speculate on “the swing of the pendulum.” (S. 47.) But Clutha expelled the demon in question seventeen years ago, and he. has not found the place empty yet. If seventeen years is not long enough to set the pendulum swinging, when may we expect it to start? An aptor text for the Professor’s purpose might have been taken from the same chapter of St. Matthew: “How can one enter into the house of a strong man and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man?” -
52. "My Name is Legion.”
There is another point ahont this miracle which makes it particularly apposite to the demon of drink. “My name is Legion” said the unclean spirit, “for we are many.” The name of the liquor demon is also Legion, for he, too, is a perfect multitude of devils. This brings us to what is perhaps the most amazing of Dr. Salmond’s hallucinations regarding the liquor question—the assumption, namely, that when this demon is expelled from a community he goes out unaccompanied, but that ho is reinforced on his return by evil companions whose acquaintance he would never have made if he had been let alone. The Pro-
144
fessor even knows their names; and their number —strange to say—tallies exactly with that of the companions of the unclean spirit in the parable: —
“The spirit of falsehood and hypocrisy, the spirit of defiant contempt of law, the spirit of perjury, the spirit of meanness and cowardice, the spirit of mutual reviling, the .spirit of subterfuge and contraband trading, the spirit of universal insincerity and moral humbug; and verily the last state will be worse than the first.” (S. 48.)
Yes, indeed, far worse’ And Dr. Salmond has actually been better —or should we say worse? —than his word. He said that there would be seven companions, but there are actually eleven, for several of them are twins. Here is fine company indeed for that eminently respectable demon of drink who, as we all know, while he was allowed to stay peacefully at home was associated only with the spirit of piety and honour, the spirit of scrupulous respect for the law, the spirit of tender regard for the sanctity of an oath, the spirit of commercial and political integrity, the spirit of generosity and manliness, the spirit of peace and goodwill, and the spirit of chastity and domestic affection. A noble company indeed and just as many twins among them as in the Professor’s list! Oh, Dr. Salmond, if a man could only be as innocent as j'ou look when you are expounding the Scripture in favour of strong drink, verily he should have peace at the last!
53. The Scriptural Associates of the Drink Demon.
To renounce the spell of the Professor’s eloquence, and turn from his glowing picture to the dark realities of life, is not a pleasant task, and yet it must be faced. There is as he himself admits, “a dark side to the story.” (S. 27.) In his exposition of the parable in question, as in most other parts of his pamphlet, he has managed to ignore it, but here, as elsewhere, it is my duty to make good the deficiency. From the Bible alone Dr. Salmond might surely have inferred that when the demon of drunkenness goes forth into the wilderness or down into the abyss, he will take with him at least as foul a company as that with which the Professor’s fancy pictures him as returning. Drunkenness is associated in the Bible with (1) indecency (Gen. 9, 21, Lam. 4, 21) ; (2) lust (Hos. 4. 11, Prov. 23-33*; (3) incest (Gen. 19, 32-5) ; (4) poverty (Prov. 21, 17 and 23, 20) ; (5) strife (Prov. 23, 29-30) ; (6) injustice (Prov. 31, 5, Hah. 2, 5) ; (7) corruption (Is., 5, 22-3) ; and (8) irreligion (Is., 5, 12). If these things are the boon companions or the spawn of this filthy traffic, is it not reasonable to assume that some of them will accompany it into exile when judgment is passed Upon it?
53. The Verdict of Statesmanship and Science.
The associates of the liquor traffic in the history of our own race are set out in the preamble to what was, I believe, the .first statute passed by the English Parliament for the repression of drunkenness. This Act was passed in 1606, and Bacon who was then Solipitor-Geqneral was possibly the draftsman. The language of the preamble is at any rate worthy of him :
“Whereas the loathsome and odious Sin of Drunkenness is of late grown into common Use within this Realm, being the Root and Foundation of many other enormous Sins, as Bloodshed, Stabbing, Murder, Swearing, Fornication, Adultery, and such
*lf the rendering of the R. V., “Thine eyes shall behold strange things,” be adopted instead of “strange women” (A.V.), the reference in the second passage will rather be to hallucinations.
38
like, to the great Dishonour of God and of our Nation, the overthrow of many good Arts and manual Trades, the disabling of divers Workmen, and the general Impoverishing of many good Subjects, abusively wasting the good Creatures of God."
For the fruits of strong drink in our own day let a modern man of science speak. Dr. Kelynack, Honorary Secretary of the Society for the Study of Inebriety, testifies as follows in his little book on “The AlcohdM’roblem in its Iliological Aspect,” p. 1 'h.
“Alcohol from the very nature of its action has well been called ‘an instrument o’f vice.’ It brings about dissolution of the elements on the highest level, so exciting egoism, lying, dishonesty, suspiciousness, sexuality, violence, and suicide.”
It is strange that this scientific catalogue should also have stopped at the mystic number "seven.” It is also strange that the worst of the evils which Dr. Salmond pictures the demon of drunkenness as certain to bring back with him to make matters worse if we are so rude as to eject him. and one evil which is perhaps more dangerous than any of them, and is stated by Dr. Salmond to be ten times more deadly than drunkenness itself (S. 31) are all described by that eminent authority as the normal products of alcohol under existing conditions.
55. Prohibition “Futile and Impossible.”
Prohibition laws should not be passed unless there is a reasonable prospect of enforcing them ; and that in the present case the conditions are such that Prohibition would be found futile and imuossible.” (S. 51-2.)
It is perfectly true that "no prohibitory law can achieve success unless it can invoke the aid of the public and private conscience, it it has behind it only the policeman’s baton.” (S. 53.) In a democracy at any rate, the policeman’s baton is of little more value than any private shillelagh unless it has the moral force of the community behind it In some parts of his argument Dr. Salmond speaks as though the law rfould be the imposition of some external and alien authority instead of being the free choice of the people themselves. In the fact that a law prohibiting liquor cannot come into operation except by the clear and deliberate expression of the popular will which is carefully guarded from the intrusion of any other issue we have a better guarantee for the harmony of the experiment with public opinion than exists with regard to 90 per cent, of our legislation passed in the usual rough and ready style. I have no hesitation in saying that the No-Lioence law in the twelve districts of New Zealand where it operates to-day is. in spite of all the handicaps, far less flagrantly violated than the licence law of the other districts.
Dr. Salmond naturally prefers to take a g 1 ance—a very hasty dance it is—at America for his evidence of the failure of Prohibition.' 'is it altogether a falsehood,” he asks, ‘that hotelkeepers vote eagerly for Prohibition because it pays them better than licence? fS. 50.) Yes; it is altogether a falsehood a 100 per cent. lie. The most convincing testimony to the success of American Prohibition is to lie found not in the jubilation of its friends, but m the panic of its enemies. Even the most superficial study of the authorities on either side of the controversy m the tinited States would satisfy Dr. Salmond on that point. Hut a simpler test for a man who finds it easier to write about the liquor qwstion than to study it would be to ask the liquor dealers ° xT• . d hmv thpv arp Koln " to vote at the coming polls. Yet even the I rotessor’s simplicity should not need to put such a question. I Mo-Licence in Invercargill and Masterton is such a dgantic failure that there is more liquor sold there than ever, why is the "Trade spending so much money and telling so many lies in order to reverse the
30
vote in those districts and to prevent other districts from increasing the sale of liquor in a similar way? If it be true that actions speak louder than words Dr. Salmond would be wise to gauge the Trade by Us vote and its objects rather than by its talk.
56. The Committee of Fifty Again.
"Is the testimony of the Committee of Fifty altogether a lie?” is another of Dr. Salmond’s questions. (S. 56.) No, not altogether a lie. Even the worst of that Committee’s reports, and the only one that Dr. Salmond appears to have seen, is not altogether a lie. It is net a direct and defiant repudiation of notorious and irrefutably established facts, like that part of Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet in which he denounces the “loose and exaggerated” statements of the Prohibitionists; but for all that it is highly coloured and misleading. A single sentence from an unimpeachable authority, an editorial review of the book in the "Annals of the American Academy,” September, 1897, will suffice to dispose of Dr. Salmond’s question :
“The fact is that this first fruit of the work of the remarkably respectable and able Committee is a disappointment, betraying a bias so pronounced and so utterly unscientific as to throw suspicion upon their ability to choose discreet and competent agents if not upon the value of their own deductions.”
It may interest Dr. Salmond to know that the leading spirit of the Committee of Fifty. Mr. Charles W. Eliot, ex-Presidcnt of Harvard, has since publicly announced his conversion to the cause of No-Licence and has helped to put 1,600,000 persons in his State (Massachusetts) — about double the population of Maine—under local prohibition.
57. Tha Conditions of Success.
As a matter of fact even the biased investigations of Messrs. Wines and Koren* contain absolutely nothing, so far as 1 have observed to shake the confidence of the Prohibitionists of this country. We have recognised from the first that the conditions of success are:—(l) a favourable public opinion; (2) an honest and competent Executive • (3) an honest and competent police. Having accepted that position how can our faith be shaken by evidence that Prohibition does not prohibit when one or more of these conditions is lacking? With the police under local control and that control dependent upon the result of an annual election, State Prohibition in America has too often meant Prohibition with local option to break it just as the New Zealand policy has been one ot licence with a local option to prohibit. The struggle between an “enforcement” and a “non-enforcement” ticket has been quite a normal feature of local politics in some parts of the Prohibition states, ion have only to know which party succeeded at the last elections in the various towns in order to know where to seek for evidence of the success or the failure of Prohibition. Any critic who quotes indiscriminately from such a country the evidence of failure as calculated to affect us m the very least merely proclaims his own ignorance For twenty years we have searched and we have asked for an example of a failure of Prohibition where public opinion, the Executive and the police are in its favour, and it has not been forthcoming. Dr Salmond has not produced it because, “inter alia,” he has not looked far enough into the question to appreciate its crucial importance.
* The name of the first of these collaborators should have sufficed to arouse suspicion. An unfortunate Oxford undergraduate of the remark f fry 1 Cr ’ Was once . dismissed by an angry examiner with the remark. You may go sir, you have done disgracefully V our verv name is ungrammatical.” After the verdict of the “Annals of thl American Academy may we not say to Dr. Wines: “You mav wo Sir, you have done disgracefully; your very name is alcoholic” ? X K ’
147
CHAPTER VIII.
LAW AND OPINION.
The law hath been our schoolmaster.—
St. Paul.
Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the aw.—
Goldsmith.
God keep us from such visitation as Knockes have attempted in Scotland—the people to be orderers of things!—
Archbishop Parker (1559).
But these were a company of mean fellows—alas : not a lord, nor a gentleman, nor a man of fortune, nor this nor that, amongst them : but it was a poor headstrong people, a company of rash fellows that were at the undertaking of this—and that was all! —
Cromwell (1656).
58. Conscience and Cork-screws.
Sometimes Dr. Salmond unconsciously supplies the answer to the fears concerning Prohibition which his imagination is so ready to conjure up. He is sure that a prohibitory • law can never command the necessary moral force to insure its successful operation. "How can it be possible,” he asks, “to expect the development of a common conscience, loathing as odious the sale and use of a glass of wine?” (S. 53.) Yet only a few pages previously he had informed us that "in districts where feeling runs high a man has been known to blush on its being discovered that be was the owner of a cork-screw.” (S. 49.) A more handsome tribute could hardly have been paid by a hostile witness to the force of public sentiment in that district, nor a happier illustration supplied of the manner in which opinion develops under the shelter of law or custom and ultimately acquires the force of a moral sanction. There was nothing in the law to make that man blush. Blushing is a spiritual business, and as such is beyond the scope of that “external and mechanical reformation” which is said to lie all that the law can effect. (S. 47.) A district where even the possession of a cork-screw cannot be acknowledged without a blush has surely achieved, or gone a considerable distance towards achieving, what the Professor declares to be impossible, viz., “the development of a common conscience loathing as odious the sale and use of a glass of wine.”
59. Law as a Moral Agent.
Dr. Salmond’s testimony may bp supplemented by another which proves the educative effect of public opinion and the law in a case which leaves no room for the suspicion of coercion. In a district which had declared for No-Lioenoe a clergyman whose practice in regard both to drinking and to voting was the same as Dr. SaJinond’s, continued to supply himself with liquor in his own home as the law allowed. But after a while, realising the benefits that No-Licence was conferring upon many of the residents, and feeling that as a moderate drinker in a No-Licenoe district he was to some extent countenancing the evil elements which were banded to thwart the law, he gave up his glass and made a public avowal of the fact. Human motives are. as the I tofessor is loud of reminding ns. usually complex, and it is quite possjble that oven in the case of this conscientious and high-minded man the feeling that drinking was "not the thing" in a No-Licence district
148
grew upon him and hastened lira conversion. But the man’s social position certainly put him beyond the suspicion ot any coercive pressure in the direction which he took; the pressure in his class was all the other way. Under the educative influence of a law which he had at first opposed this Christian Minister was thus induced to make a purely voluntary sacrifice which went far beyond what the law itself required. Similar testimony is forthcoming from the “dry” territory of the United States. Neither State laws nor local votes have made drinking illegal in any part of that territory which now includes more than 40,000,000 people and covers an area of more than 2,000,000 square miles, but they nave gone a long way towards making it disreputable. The tendency all over these districts is for private drinking to decline instead of increasing when the saloons are closed. It was estimated in 1889 by a majority of the Probate Judges—the former licensing authorities — of Kansas, that the prohibitory law had effected a reduction both in drunkenness and in drinking of from 75 to 90 per cent.
60. “The Law Our Schoolmaster.’
As a converse example of the evil education administered by a bad law let me cite a case vouched for by Judge Pitman, of Massachusetts. Shortly after Massachusetts had repealed her Prohibitory law, a man was heard endeavouring to persuade a friend to enter one of the newly-re-opened saloons. “Come along,” said he, “this is now as respectable a place as any; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts says so.”*
Though Dr. Salraond makes a general admission that law “models the framework of human life” and “moulds our habits” (S. 58), he entirely overlooks this educative effect of law for good or for evil in relation to the liquor problem. Yet the relations of law and opinion illustrate the principle of the “mutuality of cause and effect” (S. 37) just as clearly as the case to which Dr. Salmond applies it. Opinion makes the law and the law makes opinion. In the social sphere a law going far beyond public opinion runs a grave risk of resistance and reaction. But a law with a majority' behind it can not only rely upon the additional support of that considerable proportion of persons who in a lawabiding community are prepared to stand by the law as such, but may also exercise an educative effect far beyond its immediate demands. Ip not only checks practices that are immoral or otherwise evil, but cultivates the growth of a higher moral standard than what it may itself prescribe. In the words of St. Paul the law, though a different law from that of which he spoke, may still be “our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ."
61. No Work for the Police.
Ihe difficulties which Dr. Salmond’s lively imagination conjures up to embarrass the enforcement of the law are sometimes too much for his sense of humour, not to say sense of grammar. “We will require,” ho says (“will we really?” one is tempted to interject) “a fleet of swift cruisers round our coasts; a mighty host of policemen to hunt down smugglers and secret distillers, etc., etc.” (S. 52-3.) As to the policemen there is no reason to suppose that the experience of New Zealand under Prohibition would be any different from that of other countries who have tried the experiment. “Prior to Prohibition” was the report from the Probate Judge in Sumner County. K.ansas, a few years after
* “Alcohol and the State,” by R. C. Pitman, p. 301. This work, though now more than 30 years old, is still the most scholarly, comprehensive, and closely reasoned treatise on the subject, especially from the standpoints of law and political philosophy, with which I am acquainted. A better antidote to Mill and Spencer, Rousseau and Salmond could not be desired.
42
that State ‘‘went drv,” “we had 15 saloons and 15 policemen. Now wo have onlv one marshal who has little to do.” Of the Southern States which have recently followed the example of .Maine and Kansas,' Dr. Wilbur Chapman lias stated that the only complaint he heard on a tour through theSe States was from one county of Georgia where the roads had gone to ruin under Prohibition because the work had formerly been done by gangs of prisoners, and there were now no prisoners left. The extraordinary diminution of the crime-sheets in all the No-Licence -districts of New Zealand for which a separate record is available, shows that when the whole country enjoys a similar benefit, not an increase, but a large decrease in the size of its police force, may lie expected. AVheil Drf.Salmond talks of people helping “to rivet shackles on their own bodies” (S. 11) by voting out the bars he should be able to spare a thought for those for whom the abolition of the liquor traffic will effect an unrivotting of shackles which w ill not be a wild figure of speech but the literal statement of a plain fact. “To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free”— these things have been realised not in the disordered imaginations of weak-minded visionaries who “see the dawn of the millennium in the gilding of a cloud” (S. 24). but in bard, palpable, concrete reality which will stand the test of the driest light that Dr. Salmond can turn upon them. Assuredly he need not worry about the cost of the police.
62. Swift Cruisers and Sly-Crog.
As to the swift cruisers I should bo glad to think that Dr. Salmond is a true prophet. Believing that internally the liquor traffic and externally the naval ambitions of rival powers in the North Sea and the Pacific represent the gravest dangers that the Empire has to face, I should be glad to think that in guarding against the danger to which they are most alive the people of this country will at the same time be making timely preparation against the other. If we shall really need a fleet to patrol the seas in search of sly grog we shall thus get the wherewithal to rob the Yellow Peril of its terrors. Nor need we worry about the cost. The £2,000,000 needed to provide the British Navy with a single Dreadnought is being raised bv a special loan involving heavy taxation. But the money that we shall save from the liquor traffic will enable us to provide a Dreadnought every year and still he a million to the good. At the same time '’the eagerness of the demand” for liquor and "the ingenuity of depravity” with which it would be pressed (S. 53) might be expected to give our seamen the necessary training to keep their hands in. In the endeavour to cope with the beer and whisky fleet New Zealand would thus speedily develop into a first-class Naval Power capable of holding its own against any other fleet that the Pacific is ever likely to sec. Let us therefore hope that the swift cruisers of Dr. Salmond’s vision may have a more substantial existence than some of the other products of his prolific imagination.
6U. Lawyers, Lecturers, etc., Favour Liauor.
But the Professor also fears a deadly peril from those of our own household; —
“I can find only a few abstainers, and still fewer Prohibitionists, among the professional classes, such as lawyers, doctors, professors, and lecturers in our colleges, judges and magistrates. 1 am informed that there are only a few among run-holders, farmers, and prosperous merchants. Who then record their votes for No-Licence?” (S. 57.1
Who, indeed! The Professor lias proved to his own satisfaction that the supporters of No-Licence are an ignorant, uneducated, unintelligent, unprofessional, and unfinancial lot who should know better than to outvote their betters. The painfulness of the revelation for those whose
150
infirmities are thus proclaimed has, howeyer, some compensation in the th'U the story is a very old one. Ot how many ot the reforms of which not merely the democrat, hut the moralist, is proudest to-day must it not be acknowledged that they were carried by the rank and ilk- with their natural leaders lagging far behind or even pulling backwardsl have no more taste than Dr. Salmond for the political distinction between “classes” and “masses” which in this country at any rate is mostly cant. But I take leave to point out to him that his appeal to the superior wisdom of the wealthy and the cultured on a great moral issue, which ranges on the one side the luxuries and the appetites, the financial greed and the moral inertia ot the well-to-do, and on the other the sufferings of the poor is the very thing to make the odious distinction a relevant, respectable and burning issue. The altruistic cry of the brewers in the Old Country: “Don't rob a poor man of his beer, is equally good morals and decidedly better politics.
64. "Net Many wise After the Flesh.”
And leaving the arena, where, as Dr. Salmond elegantly savs, “our -ears are dinned with the noise of screaming and cursing” (S. 14) for a higher and a serener air, I cannot find that Christ made the opinions ot those nho claim the chief seats in the Synagogues the standard of faith or morals. He even went so far as to sav that it is hard for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven-a disqualification m hich is surely not limited to millionaires, but exactly hits the callousness of that contented comfort with which Dr. Salmond apparently beJieies the piety and the wisdom of the community to be associated ' And 1 rohibitionists who are satisfied that their cause is of God may find some solace against the Professor’s scorn in the reflection that of the first generation of Christians much the same things were said and that «ere freely acknowledged by the greatest ot them to be
Behold imir calling, brethren, how that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are'called: but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to the m world n Jh h + a b are and G ° d cllOSe the ' v< ' ak things of strong-X Co? I ? P Shame the things tha ‘ are
The abolition of the liquor traffic may be to the wealthv merchant a f^hshnefs b °°lt the Professor , of Mental and Moral' Philosophy LldcA or lawier rT COlnmand a three-fifths majority of runirresistible appeal to the heart and llnscielceof X "rank Stifle of the democracy. And on such an issue history shows that decision Is at. least as likely to be right as that of a judge, a lawyer, or n Doctor Cj 15 to such an issue that those words of Kant which o ro PerTerted hV ° r - Salmond 29, * 79, have their t nl
In mat w S vJ. VhlCh co, , lce r n all without distinction Nature can not be accused of any partial distribution of her sifts Til highest philospohy can achieve no more than tint j which .Nature has vouchsafed to the Te.nelt Srfe
151
CHAPTER IX.
WARNINGS FROM HISTORY.
Anything but history, for history must be false.—
Robeht Walpole.
When you can-not convince, a heap of comparisons will dazzle.—
W. G. Hamilton.
65. The Mistakes of Virtue and Religion.
History, of course, confirms the objections derived by Dr. Salmond from other sources to the policy which he set out to prove a blunder.
History,” he says, “is stored with exemplary lessons of instruction and warning. As we scan its course we note that whenever virtue and religion have achieved power and fired with zeal have become legislators, manipulating the framework of society in favour of their ideals, the results have been unfavourable.” (S. 20.)
Dr. Salmond is at least entitled to all the comfort he can derive from the reflection that, whatever else may be said against those on whose behalf he has taken up the cudgels, an impracticable degree of virtue and religion is not a failing that even the most bigoted opponent will ever lay to their charge. But it is a little hard upon the piety and virtue of the past to suggest that whenever they have achieved power they have made a mess of it. I should myself have supposed that all the great series of measures which, during the last hundred years, have made for the protection of the weak and the uplifting of the fatlep might be traced to the success of Christians controlling legislation and “manipulating the framework of society in favour of their ideals ” It is indeed impossible that Dr. Salmond should mean that Christian influence ought to be confined to the study or the pulpit, or that it is not a necessary leaven without which the sometimes sordid business of politics would become more sordid still. But if he merely means that virtue and piety in office have sometimes made mistakes, that good men are not infallible, and that the shortest cut to the millennium's sometimes the longest way round, the statement is one which nobody is concerned to deny and which therefore it is a wonder that anybodv should have been concerned to make.
66. The Ascetic Heresy.
Christian Ascetics are the first terrible example which Dr. Salmond adduces for the confusion of the fanatics of to-dav. The parallel is that in each case the protest, against some rampant vice takes the form of a swing of the moral pendulum to tine opposite extreme. The monks invented a false virtue of Chastity, and the Prohibitionists are making the same mistake with Temperance. N’o cruder sophistry ever entered into the head of man than that which I TIT* ' O3 an ascetic foundation to the Prohibition movement. The ideal ol the ascetics was to turn their backs on the world in order to live a higher life in complete seclusion from its contamination. “Arsenins, flee from men and thou shaft live,” was the call that came to one them, that it was not from women but from men that Arsenins
152
was told to flee, is a point of which Dr. Salmond should take note, for his tendency to harp on illustrations from sexual vice blinds him to the real depth and breadth of the Ascetic movement. It sought by renouncing the pleasures of this world to qualify for the higher life of the world to come. ‘‘Every corporeal pleasure,is contemptible before the Lord” —“the Spirit of God never entereth into that house where there are delights and pleasures”—these are among the maxims of the distinguished Egyptian monk already mentioned. The dangers of wine were obvious, but abstinence even from water was also considered a meritorious mortification of the flesh. Hence it was that the monks sometimes built their cells at an inconvenient distance from any W'ater, and the objection to its external application was deep-rooted and widespread.
67. The Example ot David.
The Ascetics were able to point to certain incidents in the life of Christ as the justification for a theory wfliich to us seeihs equally opposed to the teachings of Nature and of God. Like Dr. Salmond the Ascetics placed their reliance upon the letter of a few isolated texts ; like him, they had, in doing so, to ignore the spirit of the sacred writings. The Prohibitionist is equally far removed from ' both of these heresies. He does not shrink from pleasures as such; he docs not 11,, from the world as an essentially evil thing; he stays in the world and endeavours to make it a better place for himself and his fellows. Just as keenly alive as Dr. Salmond himself to the value of pleasure, ho declines nevertheless to make peace with an indulgence which, while adding something to the stock of human pleasure, takes also so terrible a toll ot suffering, degradation, and death. When David, sore pressed b\ the Philistines, expressed a hasty wish for a drink of water from the well of Bethlehem where their garrison was, three of his mighty men broke through the Philistine Army and brought their leader what he had coveted. “Nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said: Be it.far from me, 0 Lord, that X should do this: shall L drink the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? Therefore be would not drink it.” If Dr. Salmond is prepared to condemn David as an Ascetic, it can only be by carrrying his championship of pleasure far enough to impeach the very basis of Christian ethics —the denial of self for the sake of others. If he does not condemn David, he should endeavour to moderate his wrath against the Prohibitionist and the total abstainer whose motives may be equally high. A man cannot reasonably be classed as an ascetic for condemning an institution which the disinterested promoter of human happiness must pronounce to he as incompatible with the principles of Bentham as it is with the spirit of Christ.
68. Calvin’s Theocracy.
The reign of Calvin in Geneva supplies Dr. Salmond with the second of his dreadful examples which prove the futility of any attempt to improve the morals of a community by legislation. It would be hardly less absurd to accuse the Prohibitionists of a 'desire to reintroduce the rack and the stake as theological arguments than to suggest that their methods bear any other resemblance to those of Calvin. Calvin sought to regulate the details of life, conduct and belief by the decrees of a church which claimed a divine commission from on high, not merely to dictate to the individual conscience, but to operate the whole machinery of the State for the purpose of enforcing its decrees. A reign of terror was established, of which the distinguishing features were the extension of crime to the sphere of thought and opinion and the terrible
4 6
severity of the punishments, in his Hibbert lectures on "The lleformation,” J>. 250, Bfev. Charles Board gives the following' illustration of the working of this “holy reign of terror” :
Adultery was repeatedly punished with death. A child was beheaded for having struck lather and mother. Banishment, imprisonment, in some oases drowning, wore penalties inflicted on unchastity. To sing or even to have in one’s possession lewd songs, was a crime; to laugh at Calvin’s sermons, or to have spoken hot words of him in the street, was a crime; to wear clothes of forbidden stuff or make was a crime; to give a feast to too many guests or of too many dishes was a. crime; to dance at a wedding was a crime—to all of which, with many others of like sort, appropriate punishments were meted out. Everybody was obliged to attend public worship: everybody was required to partake of the Lord’s Supper: no sick man might lie in bed for three days without sending for the minister of the parish.
63. “Even Calvin."
On the one hand an ecclesiastical tyranny of this kind controlling the secular arm and in a polyglot and much-divided city directing it in the most ruthless fashion to the extirpation of sin and heresy, and provoking the inevitable reaction. On the other, a homogeneous and secular democracy, based upon adult suffrage, tolerating no ecclesiastical dictation, but proposing by its own free vote to add to its schedule of prohibited poisons one that, according to an unchallengeable array of authorities, has done more harm than all the others put together. These are the cases between which Dr. Salmond finds so close a parallel that he sees in the failure of the one an “exemplary lesson of instruction and of warning,” prophesying the like fate for the other. “Even Calvin,” ho says (S. 22), "did not attempt to prohibit the liquor traffic.” That is delightful, indeed. Even Calvin, who had a child beheaded for striking its parents did not interfere with the authority of parents to sacrifice themselves and their children to the demon of drink. Why, then, should we worry about this Moloch worship now ? Q.E.D.
70. Cromwell and the Puritans.
The Puritan tyranny under Cromwell supplies Ur. Salmond with another of his awful examples. His free and easy style has here an excellent chance of running amuck and makes so excellent a use of it that the dangers of Prohibition are not nearly so forcibly illustrated as his own capacity for blundering. This is his own statement of the case; the numbers being my own additions for convenience of reference:
(1) Thr Great Protector gathered a Parliament composed of men the most approved for moral virtue and piety to be found in the three Kingdoms ; nor was their reputation beyond what individually they merited. . . . (2) In the name of the Most High, they proceeded valiantly to extirpate, root and branch, every habit and institution that had any taint of vice or even looked that way ; right earnestly set on making the land by means of legislation, a very home of virtue, justice, and piety. Alas, for good intentions! The zealous saints turned out to bo a bodv of political simpletons. . . . (3) And there was no peace till a body of dragoons bade them go home. . . . (4) As Cromwell himself puts it: “I will now come to tell you a story of my own weakness and folly. The issue was not answerable to the simplicity and honesty of the design.” (S. 22.1
47
this plain and simple story is of the hopes, the follies, and tho ignominious extinction ot a single Parliament. Yet the reference in No. 1 is to the Constitutional Convention summoned in 1653 and commqnly known as the BarebinUes Parliament. Xo. 2 may refer cither to the Cong Parliament or to Cromwell’s Second Parliament, but certainly not to the Barebones Parliament which devoted nearly the whole of its ti\e months existence to constitutional squabbles and effected no such root-and-branch social legislation as the Professor mentions. Xo. 3 applies to the Long Parliament, for that alone had its existence terminated by a body of musketeers—not, as Dr. Salmond says, a body of dragoons, tor Cromwell, though one of the most brilliant cavalry leaders known to history, did not consider the floor of the House of Commons a suitable held for the operation of horsemen.
In order to clinch the series of blunders and cut off any possibility o, extrication Dr. Salmond reverts in No. 4 to the Barebones Parliament Ot which and no other Cromwell told “the storv of my own weakness and tolly. But an entirely false twist is given to that confession by the references in the preceding sentences to misdeeds of otlior Parliaments in a different sphere. The suggestion that Cromwell called in a troop ot soldiers to dissolve his own Parliament because it went in for too much I rohibition is as ludicrous a travesty of history as could well be imagined. ‘
71. An Armed Minority.
Like Calvin, the English Puritans made the mistake of declining to ■draw a line between the spiritual and the legislative spheres - and even when they did not cross what we now regard as the proper boundary no attempt was made to accommodate their legislation to the requirements of public opinion. In modern democracy public opinion is the supremo force to which quite a timid deference is paid, but to the Puritan an indiscriminate deference of this kind would have been a sort o. Baal-norship in which no true believer can have part. The saints uere there to coerce the heathen for the good of their souls When wToTh, aSS T Protectorship he was told that it was against the Verv i P a , t,on ’ a " d ] t^« t ‘""f men out of ten were opposed to him Wv veil,” he replied, “but what if I should disarm the nine and put P dH r tb ln h th<? tent f h man . s hands ? AVould not that do the 1 did the business tor a time, and gave England a remarkably powerful Tint ‘wbTn'l! "t," e tllere ", as a strong and wise man to hold it toother P ut . "hen he had gone, when the saint had no longer the soldier'at his ?be k Pn tl '> inevitable reaction followed which involved the good work of tho I untans ith the bad in a common ruin.
72. And a Spiritual Inquisition,
This reaction was hastened and intensified by the other mistake te Spheres Af C ,^ed-the.contusion spiritual and the polttioal spheres. Much of the legislation was excellent. Cromwell’s ordinances against cock-fighting and duelling which were afterwards confirmed £v his second I arliament were among the number, though oddly enough these are two of the subjects which Dr, Salmond would prefer' to leave op iion Par fS fXt to th haV< ' Wn left - lhp f '" operation of opinion. (S. 03.) But other measures sought to enforce religious observances and even a religious spirit by civil penalties. The rigours o. the Puritan Sabbath were given the force of law, and “vainU? and profanely walking” on that day was made an offence. An attempt to convert Christmas from a season of joy and festivity to one of peni tent.al gloom was made by the P>ng Parliament and dangerous Hots were the result, ft was even resolved “that no person shall n * ployed but such as the House shall be satisfied of his real Godliness*” A man s real godliness defied any Parliamentary test, but to a£T its
155
outward signs was a simple matter. As Macaulay has pointed out in characteristic fashion, hypocrisy was the One certain product of this spiritual inquisition. One need not wonder that when Cromwell and his soldiers had gone, the nation under the able guidance of a dissolute and absolutely unprincipled monarch plunged by way of reaction into an orgy of licentiousness of which the best thing to be said is that it was at least sincere. For years the saint and the soldier had combined to keep the sinful majority down, and the sinner had a fast and furious innings when his turn came.
In the reaction which thus followed the attempt of an armed theocracy to enforce a moral and spiritual tyranny upon a reluctant majority Dr. Salmond finds a warning which should deter a secular democracy, accommodating itself at every step to public opinion, from deciding by a direct vote, reviewed every three years, whether or not a traffic which like every other State, it has failed to regulate, should be prohibited. He only needed to point out that Puritan and Prohibition both bo"in with a’ “P” in order to complete one of,the most convincing historical' parallels that ever sprang from an ingenious brain.
72 (a) “Intolerable Gloom.”
“The story of the Reign of the Saints,” says Dr, Salmond, “repeats itself in that of the New England Puritans. . . . They inherited the temper and spirit of Calvin.” It is therefore unnecessary for me to repeat my previous argument regarding the Puritans of Old England and Calvin.' It is true that those who for conscience’ sake fled in search of freedom of worship to the New World established there for a while a spiritual tyranny of their own. They burnt witches, persecuted Ouakers, and sought to establish virtue by the same kind of repression from which they had escaped. The failure of this policy may appear full of significance for the present argument to those who are no better able than Dr. Salmond to appreciate the distinction between freedom to think and freedom to drink. The effect of the moral legislation of New England was, says Dr. Salmond, that “it tinctured all life with an intolerable gloom.’ And where is it now? Perhaps Prohibition is a portion of it, risen from the dead.” (S. 23.) Perhaps it is, but then again perhaps it isn’t.
John Bright said that if the British people could be made sober “our country would be so changed, and so changed for the better, that when we looked upon it we should not know it again." Mr. Chamberlain said that in such a case “we should see our taxes reduced by millions sterling, we should see our gaols and workhouses empty, we should see more lives saved in twelve months than are consumed in a century of bitter and savage war.” To the ordinary vision this picture will surely not appear to be tinged with “an intolerable gloom.” We must allow, of course, for the temporary drill that may be administered to the moderate drinker who has been accustomed to warm his abdominal viscera and his benevolent sympathies in the manner so eloquently described by Dr. Salmond. (S. 30 ; * 82.) But the drinker whose heart is touched by the joys and sorrows of anybody but himself, whose benevolent sympathies respond to any other stimulus than that of alcohol, will surely rejoice to see the light shine upon thousands who have hitherto been sitting “in darkness and in, the shadow of death.” Assuredly there will be no “intolerable gloom” brooding over the land in that day 1
73. Sumptuary Laws.
The sumptuary laws of ancient and mediaeval times furnish Dr. Salmond with another excellent opportunity for indignation and inaccuracy. (S. 23.) His blunders under this head are as glaring and as closely packed as those with which he honoured Puritanism on the
156
previous page. Some of them would have been avoided if the 1 rofessor had ascertained what sumptuary laws are before discussing them. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th Edition, “sumptuary laws are those intended"to limit or regulate the private expenditure of the citizens of a community.” Their aim, says Chambers’ Encyclopaedia, is “to prevent extravagance in banquets, dress and private expenditure. ‘‘Limiting private expenditure in the interest of the State is the definition of the very latest authority—the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Now for the Professor’s blunders; —
(1) He attributes to the reign of Henry VIII the famous statute which commanded that no man should be served with more than two courses. It was actually passed some two hundred years earlier in Edward Hi’s reign.
(2) “Substitute for ‘two courses’ ‘a glass of wine,’ and we have a formula which might suit Prohibition,” says the Professor — as though Prohibitionists favoured the absurdity of a legal minimum or standard of moderation. This mistake I should have passed as a slip of the pen, if its substance did not recur.
(3) “Women have been prohibited from wearing short sleeves, exposing the whiteness of the skin.” What on earth has this to do with a sumptuary law p The object of such a law is to reduce expenditure, but the effect of lengthening sleeves would be to increase it, the aim of the provision being plainly not economical but moral. If Dr. Salmond were unduly to reduce the length of his trousers, he would discover that there is a similar law in force in New Zealand, and he would plead in vain that the day of sumptuary legislation has passed.
74. Misconception and Misquotation.
(4) “The expenses of entertainments have been limited by statute and the drinking of undiluted wine forbidden lest sensuousness should grow. But there is no end to the story. It is Prohibition! Prohibition! Prohibition I” Mow for the purposes of the present argument Prohibition is exactly what it is not. All regulation is of course prohibitory on one side, but it is permissive on the other. It says; “Thus far, but no farther.” To allow a man two courses and not three, or to allow wine to be freely made and sold, but to forbid the drinking of it undiluted, is a provision which no conceivable machinery of government can ever be equal to enforcing. To prohibit a particular article of diet is child’s play in comparison, and is indeed quite practicable if the source of supply is limited and easily controlled. The two operations are at any rate entirely distinct. The Professor’s guns are really trained upon that very kind of regulation which Prohibitionists are incessantly proclaiming to be futile.
<o) A characteristic misquotation concludes the Professor’s argument under this head. Adam Smith is represented as saying tnat “it is impertinence and presumption for Governments to watch over the economy of private persons.” What he really said was this:—
England, however, as it has never been blessed with a very parsimonious Government, so parsimony has at no time been the characteristical virtue of its inhabitants. It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in Kings and Ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people and to restrain their expense either by sumptuary laws or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.— “Wealth 1 Of Nations,” 11., c,3 fad fin).
50
The ipinor inaccuracies in Dr. Salmond’s quotation are too numerous to mention. The main points are, however (1) that if he had completed the sentence, he would have had the distinction between a sumptuary law and a la" prohibiting the importation ot a foreign luxury, (e.g. spirits) brought unmistakably before him by a master mind ; (2) if he had quoted the sentence following that partly quoted he and his readers would have seen that the chief point about the impertinence and presumption was that “Kings and Ministers” (not “Governments”) should preach economy while themselves “the greatest spendthrifts in the Society.” If Henry VIII had really attacked gluttony, as the Professor imagines, the illustration of Adam Smith’s point would have been perfect. How much of the objection applies to a democracy of frugal men determined, in spite ot the opposition of the wealthy classes (S. 57; II 64), to make themselves still more frugal by prohibiting the importation and manufacture of a dangerous luxury?
75. History “As one Would.”
Twice in the course of two consecutive pages Dr. Salmond has thus succeeded in crowding into a single paragraph about as many glaring inaccuracies as it could conveniently hold. His blunders with regard both to the Puritans and to the sumptuary laws are in each case at once more numerous and more grievous than all that he could extract from the whole range of the campaign literature of a movement which ho declares to be “saturated with passion’’ (S. 25) and to be conspicuous for statements that are “loose and exaggerated.” (S. 33.) The “siccum lumen”—the “dry light”—of the philosopher, by which Dr. Salmond professes to steer (S. 66), is evidently sometimes a more dangerous will o’ the wisp than the passion of the enthusiast. As a matter of fact nothing could be more remote from a “siccum lumen” than the light which Dr. Salmond is able to bring to boar upon the liquor question. By “dry light” Bacon meant a light which was not “blooded by the affections.” “The human understanding,” he says, “is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called ‘sciences as one would’. For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes.”* A better description could not be given of Dr, Salmond’s history than that it is a “science as one would.” In the next chapter I hope to prove that his phvsiologv belongs to the same category.
*Novum Organon I. 49.
5i
CHAPTER X
THE VERDICT OF SCIENCE.
. . . turning away from the profane and vain babblings and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
1 Timothy 6.20.
76. “They Do Not Yet Know Much About It.”
Not the least unpardonable in Doctor Salmond’s singular array of sophistries is that by which he endeavours to convince “simple, honest men and pure gentle women” (S. 29) that the moderate consumption of alcohol is a safe and salutary practice against which science has no certain word to say, “Certainly, if all chemists and physiologists are o; one mind,” he says, “it is our duty to hear them. But I cannot discover that they do agree. The only conclusion I can reach is that, they do not yet know much about it, and that the mode of its action as of various other substances, remains undiscovered.” (S. 28.) A more dangerously misleading statement has rarely been made, even by Dr. Salmond. In every field of learning that is not concerned like mathematics with pure abstractions there is room for endless differences or opinion. Evolution and electricity, astronomy and archaeology, radium and religion abound in unsolved problems. The proverbial differences of the learned extend not merely to all sorts of details, but even to important principles, and agreement on some particular phase of the subject commonly opens up some new branch of research in which new differences develop. But to say on this account that astronomy has not advanced since Ptolemy , nor biology since Aristotle, or to suggest that both these sciences remain in the sanje state of conjectural chaos as before the master-keys of gravitation and evolution were discovered would be a crass absurdity. Intellectually, Dr. Salmond’s calm repudiation of the verdict of physiological science regarding alcohol because its professors are not unanimous on all points stands on the same level. Morally, his blunder is far worse than the other because with the weight that attaches to his high academical and ecclesiastical standing, hut in this matter has no foundation in fact, he confidently urges “simple honest men and pure gentle women” to take liberties with a seductive and dangerous drug which can do none of them any good and is bound to land a certain number of them in destruction.
77. Points on Which the Doctors Are Agreed.
The conclusion which the Professor draws that the chemists and physiologists do not know much about alcohol, and that where all are blind his own ignorance is entitled to speak with authority, is an extraordinary delusion. Here are some of the points on which it may be safely said that the experts in this branch of physiology are practically unanimous: —
(I) That the consumption of alcohol in any quantity is not necessary for the enjoyment by any normal human being of perfect health.
(2) That there is no fixed quantity of alcohol which can be prescribed' as the standard of moderation
52
(3) That no man can say “a prion” for another or for himself up to what point indulgence may safely be carried, and that the safety point may be passed and a habit difficult, or sometimes even practically impossible, to resist may be formed before the drinker himself has any suspicion ot clanger.
(4) That grave and even fatal injury may be done to the health without over reaching intoxication or even crossing the line which is ordinarily regarded as that of moderation.
(5) That constant and gpjierous moderation stopping at a point far short of intoxication is a greater danger to health than occasional bursts of intoxication.
(6) That the habitual consumption of alcohol in any quantities reduces the resisting power of the human body to disease and injury, and limits the benefits that may be conferred by alcohol in the rare cases where it may otherwise possess some medicinal value.
(7) That the effects of the alcohol habit may be transmitted to children and grandchildren and seriously handicap, or hopelessly damn, their lives from the start.
(8) That no drug or agency can be named which is more destructive of human life and happiness than alcohol, and that even such rival scourges as tuberculosis, syphilis, and cancer would be greatly reduced if the support which they receive from, alcohol were taken away.
(9) That total and universal abstinence from alcoholic beverages of ali sorts w'ould greatly contribute to the health, the prosperity, the morality, and the happiness of the human race.
78. Strong Language From the Experts.
From these propositions it would probably l)e very difficult to find any medical man of standing to dissent; and they surely go far enough to justify us in declaring implacable war against alcohol as an enemy ot the race. Yet the verdict of many of the scientists goes far beyond these propositions. Such experts as Horsley and Sims Woodhead, Kraepelin. and Aschaffenburg, who have supplemented clinical observation with the minutest laboratory experiments, have not hesitated to say that alcohol is a poison and as an article of diet is damaging even in the minutest quantities. Here are a few expert opinions:—
SIR FREDERICK TREVES, Surgeon to the late King—
Alcohol ,is distinctly a poison and it is a poison which, like other poisons has certain uses ; but the limitation of the use of alcohol should be as strict as the limitation of the use of any other kind of poison. Moreover, it is a curiously insidious poison, in that it produces effects which seem to have only one antidote —alcohol again. This applies to another drug equally insidious —morphia or opium. ... No man dreams of going into training and taking alcohol. He must reach the acme of physical perfection, and that must be without alcohol. • • It is also curious that troops cannot work or march on alcohol. I was, as you know, with the relief column that marched on to Ladysmith, and of course it was an exceedingly trying time, apart from the heat of the weather. In that column of some 30,000 men, the first who dropped out were not the tall men or the short men or the big men or the little men, but the drinkers, and thev dropped out as clearly as if they had been labelled.
SIR VICTOR HORSLEA, Professor of Pathology in University College, London—
Alcohol lowers the temperature of the body, and it can only do that by diminishing the activity of the vital processes. It diminishes very greatly the power of the muscles, and I
53
repeat that it diminishes the intellectual power of the nervous system. To call an agent that causes such diminution of activity throughout the whole body a food seems to me perfectly ridiculous. . . . The medical profession is using it loss and less, because tljcy appreciate it now at its true value. Therefore, either as a food or as a drug, we recognise that alcohol is of no service, or very little to the community. No service as a food, and very little service as a drug.
PROFESSOR SIMS WOODHEAD, Professor of Pathology in the University of Cambridge—
Alcohol in any form as brandy, wine, or beer, and even in relatively small amounts, is a poison to the human body. It alcohol has an effect at all of a strengthening or nourishing kind (which is doubtful) it is only so to a very limited extent and is ot no practical importance.
PROFESSOR YOUMANS, late Professor of Chemistry in Antioch College, U.S.A.—
Alcohol is universally ranked among poisons by physiologists, chemists, physicians, and all who have experimented, studied, and written upon the subject.
DR. FOREL, an eminent Swiss physician—
Alcohol, even when diluted, as in wine, beer, or cider, is a poison which changes pathologically the tissues of the body and leads to fatty degeneration.
SIR ANDREW CLARK, Physician to the late Queen Victoria — Alcohol is a poison—so is strychnine; so is arsenic; so is opium. It ranks with these agents. Health is always in some way or other injured by it.
79. "The Meanest Understanding” Knows All About It.
Having disposed of the verdict of science in the summary and fallacious fashion already mentioned. Dr. Salmond proceeds to substitute a guide which is admirably calculated to lead a man into the ditch. “Doth not Nature teach us?” ho asks. (S. 28.) “It would fare ill with us if we had always to wait for the tardy decision of Science and Physiology.” The archaic lisp with which this passage opens is quite in keeping with its antiquated substance. The Professor proceeds to quote from "one of the greatest of philosophers” a text which is to guide the feet of “simple honest men and pure gentle women” along the path down which so many of the best men and women have gone to ruin. Kant is quoted by Dr. Salmond as saying that:
‘‘ln matters which concern all man wthout distinction, Nature cannot be accused of any partial distribution of her gifts.
The highest philosophy can achieve no more than that guidance which Nature has vouchsafed to the meanest understanding.” (S. 29.)
The black type represents Dr. Salmond’s italics. A characteristically eloquent rhapsody follows about the blue sky and the starry heavens and their messages to the spirit nfman —“theconnexion of which with the plot ■one sees” when the taste for alcohol is made to figure among these primordial realities. It is hardly necessary to say that this addition is the Professor’s very own. The untutored inspiration of a Hebrew shepherd or an Ayrshire ploughman may pierce more deeply into some of the ultimate mysteries than the elaborate speculations of a Hegel or a Spencer about the Absolute or the Unknowable. That is the truth to which the German philosopher calls attention m the passage quoted hy Dr. Salmond; but he did not desire to suggest that the appetite of the ignoramus is bettor qualified to determine a point of pure science than the trained intellect of the expert. Even the Oxford philosopher who scoffed at ‘‘the land that produced one Kant with a ‘ K ’
161
and many a cant with a V ” would hardly have charged it with the production, of so outrageous a sophistry. “Put it down a we, my lord ” said Mr. Weller, senior, on a famous occasion, “put it down'a we.” “Put it down a ‘c,’ Professor, put it down a ‘c,’ ” is the advice of candour and common sense to Dr. Salmond on tine present occasion.
SO. “Wine is a Mocker.”
To set up such a claim where alcohol is concerned and to submit the doctrine for general acceptance, is surely as morally reprehensible as it is irrational. It is stated in a book which Dr. Salmond docs not scruple to quote freely for the justification of indulgence, that “wine is a mocker.” The experience of daily life and the verdict of science amply confirm the wisdom of the ancient sage; but Dr. Salmond flies in the face alike of common sense, of science and of Holy Writ when he suggests that man is to take' his own senses as a guide in dealing with this subtle foe. Alcohol makes a man feel warm, but it really lowers his temperature. Alcohol makes a man feel strong, but it really weakens him. Alcohol makes a man feel fit for work, but it really impairs his efficiency. Alcohol makes a man feel healthy, but it really saps vitality. All those things have been proved with the same scientific accuracy that the chemist is able to bring to the contents of his test-tubes. A classical experiment is that of Dr. Aschaffenburg with four compositors whose work was selected as involving "rapid thought and accurate muscle response,” and also no doubt as admitting of accurate measurement. All four men were accustomed to the use of alcohol, and the work of each of them was cheeked and compared under conditions which were identical except that in one series of experiments he was given “a small dietetic quantity of alcohol” and in the other he had none. The result of even this mild dose was to prove an actual loss of working power averaging 8.7 per cent., although in each case the men who had taken alcohol believed they were doing better and quicker work than when they were abstaining.*
B*. “Unsophisticated Reason” as a Scientific Guide.
Dr. Sims Woodhead sums up the matter thus: —
In every-day life the saying is common: “(Jur senses are our guides. li a man. cannot believe his senses, what can he believe?” It is here where the difficulty comes in. A man under the influence of even small quantities of alcohol has no right to believe his senses ; he cannot trust them to give him correct facts, and he cannot rely on his judgment for the interpretation of these facts.
The man himself, says Dr. Salmond, is the best The man himself, according to Dr. Sims Woodhoad. is absolutely‘incapacitated from judging in his own case. “Unsophisticated reason,” says Dr Salmond •■becomes its own teacher. . . . There is a pre-established harmony between the bodily constitution and certain natural substances.” ' 1 Ihe pre-established harmony between the bodilv constitution and the artificial products of fermentation and distillation'is very much like that between the lamb and the wolf. The function of those products is, according to the voice of science, always' to deceive generally tc deceive and to injure, and not seldom to deceive ami to'destroy'. Alcohol is indeed the arch-deceiver, hut on the ground that its lies are in the initial stages so exceedingly pleasant. Dr. Salmond demands for them the full credence of the natural man. What he terms •■unsophisticated reason, but what really means unscientific reasoning sophisti-
'For the details of this and similar experiments, see “Alcohol and the Human Body, by Horsley and Sturge, 4th edition, pp. 72-75.
162
cated by the blandishments of the arch-deceiver, is to be set up as the final Court of Appeal from the judgment of science as to the true character of this seductive agency. This comes well indeed from the man who, as we have seen (If 75), parades his allegiance to the “siccura lumen” (S. 66), the dry light of unclouded and unbiased reason.
82. A Beatific Vision.
The dangerous trend of Dr. Salmond’s general doctrine is emphasized by the glowing picture that ho paints of the joys and the blessings or moderate drinking:—
If a man finds that a glass of win© makes his heart beat faster and stronger, quickens the circulation in the brain, sends a warm glow through the abdominal viscera, loosens the tongue, quickens the imagination, facilitates conversation, adds to geniality, warms his benevolent faculties, chases the cloud from his brow and smooths away its wrinkles, is he therefore a deprav'd man with morbid appetite?’ (S. 30-1.)
1 for one should not see in these symptoms a sufficient reason for calling a man depraved or his appetite morbid. But a medical man would probably have no hesitation in advising that the man who induced all these agreeable effects by the use of alcohol was takingmore of it than was good for him. ‘‘Temporarily exhilarant for a short time; depressant for a much longer time” (Horsley and Sturge, op. cit. p. 12) —such are notoriously the effects of narcotics; such as alcohol, opium, chloroform, and ether. Dr. Sa.lmond’s convivial drinker may have heen stirred to conversational brilliance or have had his wrinkles smoothed away under the inspiration of alcohol; or what is more probable, he may have appeared brilliant and his brow smooth, to himself, which, when alcohol is concerned, is, as we have seen, not always the same thing. “Wine,” said Dr. Johnson, “makes a man more pleased with himself. Ido not say that it makes him more pleasing to others.” And Dr. Salmond will remember that Plato, to whom he actually appeals as a scientific authority, hazarded a humorous etymology of the Greek word for wine, the point of which was that “wine makes those who drink it think they have a mind when they have none.” (Cratylus, 406 C.) The Professor’s beautiful picture of the joys of drinking maybe but another illustration of a fact which must be familiar to everybody but him. The verdict of modern science at any rate is that a brain and a body less fit for their highest work are the inevitable penalties to be paid for alcoholic excitement. Here is the testimony of a distinguished Russian expert, Professor Sikovsky, of St. Petersburg -which, like so many others cited in this chapter, seems as though expresslydesigned, phrase by phrase, to prick the brilliant bubbles of Dr. Salmonef's “science as one would”:—
Alcohol diminishes the rapidity of thought, makes the imagination and power of reflection commonplace and deprived of originality, acts upon fine and complex sensations by transforming them into coarse and elementary ones ; provokes outbursts of evil passions and dispositions, and in this way predisposes men to strife and crime, and upsets habits of work and perseverance.
83. "The Experience of all the Ages.”
Dr. Salmond’s moderate drinker does indeed rather suggest the standard of moderation which prevailed in an earlier day. °The late Bishop of Oxford would have bluntly called such a man the worse for drink, for he defined that condition as follows:
I say that man is the worse for drink whose head is hot and whose cheek is flushed and whose pulse is quickened, and whose brief, brisk excitement is due to the stimulants he has taken
163
It may be perfectly true that no jury in England would find him to be intoxicated, but he is the worse for drink for all that.
Dr. Salmond’s picture may represent a degree of moderation slightly further removed from intoxication than that of Dr. Stubbs, but it is plainly a harmful and dangerous moderation nevertheless. “The experience of all the ages of men,” says Dr. Salmond, “tells us with assurance that wine in moderate use is wholesome and strengthening to the normal human body.” (S. 30.) “The experience of all the ages,” like many other thingsj has different messages for different observers. As long" ago as 1839 a large number of the most eminent scientific men in England signed a statement which included these sentences: —
An opinion handed from rude and ignorant times and imbibed by Englishmen from their youth has become very general, that the habitual use of some portion of alcoholic drink, as of wine, beer, or spirits is beneficial to health, and even necessary to those who are subjected to habitual labour.
Anatomy, physiology, and the experience of all ages and countries, when properly examined, must satisfy every mind well informed in medical science that the above opinion is altogether erroneous.
An opinion which more than 70 years ago appeared to the last scientific minds of the day the relic of “rude and ignorant times” is still sufficiently up-to-date for Dr. Salmond. “The experience of all ages and countries” confirmed for them the verdict of anatomy and physiology that the idea that alcoholic liquor of any kind was beneficial for health was “altogether erroneous.” To Dr. Salmond, on the other hand, “the experience of all the ages” declares “with assurance” that “wine is wholesome and strengthening to the normal human body,” and he is prepared to put that before what he is pleased to regard as the dubious voices of science. The experience of all the ages, which thus interpreted is a synonym for the ignorance of our forefathers, and the guidance of Nature, which is little better than a synonym for appetite, are held up to “simple honest men and pure gentle women” as sufficient guides along that slippery course from which thousands of the noblest specimens of our race have stumbled and slipped into the abyss. It would be as reasonable to urge that because some of the problems of magnetism are still unsolved, a man’s unsophisticated sense of direction, stimulated perhaps by a little Dutch courage, would be a better guide across a dangerous ocean than a mariner’s compass.
84. Gladstone Again.
Like Iris history. Dr. Salmond’s science is, as previously suggested, mostly of the “a priori” kind. Doth are emphatically what the Germans call “tendency writings.” He starts with a moral and works backward to his facts which oddly enough are found to lit the desired conclusion like a glove. One of the many advantages of this method of writing is that it dispenses with the necessity either for any empirical knowledge of the facts or for the citation of authorities. On the scientific side of the question Dr. Salmond does, indeed, refer to three authorities: Plato, Gladstone, and Lord Avebury! “Mr. Gladstone,” he says, “tells us that he drank good wine and beer every day, and without them he was unable to meet the heavy demands made on his strength by the duties of his office. (S. 28.) The first of these clauses is Gladstone s; the second appears to be Dr. Salmond’s inference, though stated with such unfortunate ambiguity as to convey to a careless reader the idea that it was Gladstone’s If it really was Gladstone's, it proves absolutely nothing except that he was subject to exactly the same do-
164
lusion as nine-tenths of the men ot his class and generation regarding the strengthening powers of wine—a delusion which any twentieth century man of science would laugh to scorn. *
85. Lord Avebury Turns King's Evidence.
The citation of Lord Avebury as an authority is particularly unfortunate for Dr. Salmond "In his excellent book on ‘The Use of Life’,” says Dr. Salmond, “Lord Avebury says that ‘bread and cheese and a glass of beer form an ideal luncheon,’ but no man would give bread and cheese and water to a beggar.” (S. 28.) Here, as in the previous case. Dr. Salmond fallows up his quotation with a gloss which enlarges it, but here at least the quotation marks leave no room for ambiguity. 1 find that in an earlier volume, “The Pleasures of Life,” Lord Avebury has a good word for a luncheon of bread and cheese without any mention of beer —an omission which, as we have seen, would, in Dr. Salmond’s opinion, make the meal unfit even to offer to a beggar. It is also worth noting that the recommendation quoted by Dr. Salmond occurs in a chapter on “Money Matters.” Lord Avebury, who is really preaching economy to the gilded youth of England, quotes with approval the advice to “live on sixpence a day and earn it.” Even the most strait-laced Prohibitionist must admit that the beer which can be bought with what is left of sixpence after paying for three or more meals will not do a man much harm. Lord Avebury’s real opinion of strong drink is contained in the chapter on “Health,” to which the Professor does not appear to have turned; —
The word drink is often used as synonymous with alcohol—the great curse ot northern nations. In some cases a valuable medicine. but yet so great a temptation as to be the source of probably half the sin and misery of our countrymen. Honest water never made anyone a sinner, hut CRIME MAY ALMOST BE SAID TO BE CONCENTRATED ALCOHOL.”
Concentrated alcohol! “An excellent book” —I thank thee, Dr. Salmond, for teaching me that word I And I appeal to any impartial reader to say whether in all the strong statements attributed by Dr. Salmond to the Prohibitionists there is any of such concentrated strength as this.
86. “Bad For Both Body and Mind.”
There is another book by this excellent writer which Dr. Salmond should read. In “Peace and Happiness” (1909), p. 49, Lord Avebury deals with alcohol in terms which I particularly commend to the Professor’s attention:—
Statistics seem to prove that teetotallers live longer than those who take alcohol, even in moderation. Alcohol is bad not only for the body but for the mind. It makes men quarrelsome; it inflames the passions, makes them more hard to resist, and increases the difficulty of living a pure fife.
*Dr. Salmond will, of course, recognise that in the absence of auv trial of total abstinence, Gladstone’s experience proves nothing, l>eing a mere ‘‘post hoc, propter hoc.” The most abstemious man I ever knew was accustomed for years to take a small dose of spirits with his supper, and was firmly persuaded that it did him good. Being put upon inquiry by the rise of the No-License movement, he decided to dispense with his tiny nip for a time by way of experiment. The result was so satisfactory that he never returned to it. He had been well while he took alcohol, but was better still without it. and was quite satisfied that his previous theory on the subiect had been a delusion What the logicians call “the method of difference” had exploded a fallacy which vitiates the testimony of Gladstone and nearlv all “the experience of all the ages.”
58
Will Dr Salmond also note that Lord Avebury, like Sikovsky and t i,„ other experts quoted in this chapter, is speaking not of of ol alcohol ... itself The ProW.on.ste are bitte-h attacked bv (Jr. Salmond for saying ‘'that its use (not its abuse) as a ‘tendency to harden the heart, sear the conscience, destroy donas a u j' , n \ y e t j iere 1S his own chosen witness dedaring That’the use (not the abuse) of alcohol, makes (not tends to make) men quarrelsome, inflames their passions and increases impurity. I will subsequently be shown that Hosea deserves to stand in Dr Salbond’s pillory. For the present let it suffice to have put Lord Avebury there, and does he not deserve to go there tor so cruelly giving the Professor away? The one witness cited by Dr. Salmond with the faintest pretence to be regarded as a scientific authority declares 1 that • crime may almost be described as concentrated alcoho ; and (2) that • alcohol is bad not only for the body, but for the mind. When therefore Dr Salmond asks: “Are the tens of thousands who agree with him in theory and practice all to count for nothing?’’ the answer is: “No, they should all count for No-Licence and Prohibition at the coming polls."
59
CHAPTER XI
PLATO AND PROHIBITION.
Plato, thou reasonest well.—
Addison.
With just enough of learning to misquote.—
Bvkon.
87. “The Milk of tns Aged.”
Dr. Salmond’s monstrous perversion of Kant is paralleled by his treatment of another great philosopher. He arrives at the conclusion that young people are better without alcohol, but that it is “an excellent restorative in many forms of debility and a soother and comforter of the infirmities of age.” (S. 30.) If the Professor had said that the young are better without alcohol and so are the aged, the statement would have been unexceptionable. His belief in the value of alcohol in old age has no more solid foundation than the other articles in his alcoholic creed. “The habitual use of alcohol except in the smallest quantify.” wrote Sir Hermann Weber, M.D., in 1906, “is to them (i.e., the aged) even more injurious than to younger people in their full activity.” “Wine is not as is supposed, ‘the milk of the aged’,” said Sir Thomas Barlow, Physician to Queen Victoria and to the late King’s Household. “It tends to produce cardiac weakness and rheumatic pains and deterioration of the fine arterioles and blood-vessels.” Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Sturge quote both these statements with approval in their work already quoted, and add that “nothing is more striking than the marked improvement seen in cases of acute mental depression in elderly people when the giving of alcohol is stopped, and the eliminative powers of the patient are aided by medical treatment.”
88. Sonn vsry “Sans Conclusions”!
P r - Salmond is unable to cite any scientific authority in support of his belief in the value of alcohol as a comforter of old "age; but he informs us that his conclusions are “much the same as the conclusions that Plato reached so long ago.” The Professor’s prodigious talent for inaccurate quotation is seldom displayed to greater advantage than in his alleged samples of Plato. “Boys shall not taste wine at all” is one of these quotations. What Plato says is “Bovs shall not taste wine at all until they are eighteen years of age.” Ur. Salmond proceeds to quote Plato as saying that “When at length a man has reached forty years he may make use of the wine which has been given us to lighten the sourness of old age, etc.” “These sane conclusions, incompatible with Prohibition, will never he upset,” says Dr. Salmond. Yet one of these conclusions as the Professor presents it is that a man is not to be allowed to touch wine till he is fortv years old! This sane conclusion is applauded by a man who set out to vindicate our Heaven-born hbertv to dnnk as ive please, and when we please! Plato’s approval of drinking by the aged is ‘ in order that the nature of the soul, like iron melted m the fire, may become softer and so made more impressible ” Ibis is the other of the sane conclusions of which the Professor declares with an air of authority, entirely unsupported by evidence that they
167
will never be upset and that “Physiology and chemistry will write an endorsement on them.” (S. 30.) As though Plato’s poetical notion—for he was a philosopher who was far more a poet than a man of science —that alcohol warms the body and softens the soul and as such is an aid to discipline and a balm for sorrow and old age were anything bub sheer fantasy. “These sane conclusions,” the Professor tells us, “will never be upset.” when the fact is that “like the baseless fabric of a vision” they have never had any foundation at all save in the imagination of the poet and can be freely admired as poetry until the ecstatic Professor, after the lapse of more than twenty centuries, sets them up for adoration on the pedestal of science.
89. Plato Against the “Heaven-given Freedom to Drink.”
As a matter of fact Dr. Salmond has, in the mutilated quotations which he has given, represented Plato as more of a Prohibitionist in one respect than the text really justifies. Total abstinence to the age of eighteen years : wine in moderation from eighteen to thirty; and after forty greatei freedom and admission to the public banquets wliere the softening power of alcohol will be pressed into the service of the State and render the drinkers more susceptible to the influence of the calm and sober generals who preside—such was Plato’s beautiful, but entirely visionary, ideal. Of the functions of the generals who are to guard the laws and mould the character of the citizens he says that “without their help there is greater difficulty in fighting against drink than in fighting against enemies when the commander of an army is not himself calm.” Except under conditions which are plainly impracticable this wise anti-Prohibitionist recognises drink as likely to be a greater danger to a State than its enemies, thus anticipating the similar opinions expressed by Prince Leopold and Von Moltke regarding the greatest perils of England and Germany respectively. Here is another sane conclusion that will never be upset, but it draws no raptures from Dr. Salmond. He does, however, something far worse than this. ‘‘No city will need many vineyards” is a statement which he correctly quotes from Plato. It is to be regretted that Dr. Salmond did not quote the whole or even the substance of the striking passage in which the vague and colourless words selected do not even form a complete sentence. This is what the Greek philosopher whom the Professor quotes as in substantial agreement with him, reallv has to sav on the subject: —
“But if the State makes drinking an amusement only, and whoever likes may drink, whenever he likes, and with whom he likes, and add to this any other indulgences, I shall never agree or allow that this city or this man should adopt such a usage of drinking. I would go farther than the Cretans and Lacedaemonians, and am disposed rather to the law of the Carthaginians. that no one while he is on a campaign should be allowed to taste wine at all. But I should sav that he should drink water during all that time, ami that in the city no slave, male or female, should ever drink wine ; and that no rulers should drink during their years of office, nor pilots of vessels, nor judges while on duty should taste wine at all: nor anyone who is going to hold any consultation about anv matter of importance, nor in the daytime at all. unless in consequence of exercise or as a medicine ; nor again at night when anyone, either man or woman, is minded to get children. There are numberless other cases also in which those who have good sense and good laws ought not to drink wine, so that if what I say is true no city will need many vineyards. 1 '
—Plato: Laws: (Jewett's translation) 11., 673-4
168
90. A Beautiful Passage.
From this beautiful passage which cuts in every clause at the very foundation of Dr. Salmond’s theories he does not quote a single sentence because not one would have served his turn. Six words only are quoted—six colourless words which moan nothing in particular thus detached from their context but serve to give an air of moderation and impartiality to the man who quotes them : all the rest which includes everything that is material is suppressed. And thus one of the brightest minds and one of the most beautiful souls of the ancient world —the man to whose noble vision of “all time and all existence” Christian theology owes more than to any other of the precursors of Christ —is pressed into the service of the modern liquor traffic. Plato stands for the absolute Prohibition by the State of (1) drinking for amusement only ; (2) drinking (a) as a man likes, (b) when he likes, (c) with whom he likes; (3, drinking by rulers during their term of office'; (4) drinking by judges when on duty : (5) drinking by pilots ; (6) drinking by anybody who has important business on hand; (7) drinking by anybody during the day except as medicine or after great exertion; (8) drinking by married people at other times; (9) drinking in numberless other cases—to be defined by law or common sense.
91. Mors Drastic Than Prohibition.
Of these drastic restrictions it may be said, in the first place, that they testify to the immense danger to the State which Plato detected even in the mild liquors of the ancients and under those blue skies which Dr. Saimond assures us (S. 39) put a check upon the spread of drunkenness; secondly, that Plato recognises the welfare of the State to be the paramount concern beside which the pleasure of the individual is a negligible quantity : thirdly, that his sense of the dangers of drink was such that he has endeavoured to hedge it round with rigid and minute restrictions in comparison with which the complete Prohibition of the traffic would, outside of a philosopher's study, be an infinitely simpler matter. Such is the authority which with a full knowledge of the context, as his selection of phrases from various parts of it abundantly proves, Dr. Saimond. with his theories of a man’s heaven-born right to eat and drink as he pleases, ventured to cite as in substantial agreement with him on the use of alcohol.
The theory of Plato that judges like rulers and pilots should be prohibited from touching wine during the discharge of their official duties presents an honourable contrast indeed to Dr. Salmond’s plea that the drinking habits and anti-Prohibition bias of, among others, judges and magistrates are reasons why Prohibition should not Ire attempted, and why it might lead to “dangerous rebellion” (S. o~) if it were! The Professor’s sense of humour suffered a serious lapse when it allowed him to pen this astounding passage. But a much nobler faculty was eclipsed when, by the process which I have explained, he ventured to travesty Plato into a supporter of his views.
62
CHAPTER XII.
THE CRY OF THE CHILDREN.
Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.—
Bt. Matthew 18.14.
Do ye hear the children weeping, O my bio’hers,
Ere the sorrow comes with years V
E. B. Browning.
I mourn over earth’s cruelty—its slavery that tortures—its crime that blackens—its suffering that agonizes, yet that mournfulness is often the sadness of autumn s rich harvest; but I pour the tears of impotent pity, and I bow in the delirium of despair, over the drunkard’s child.—
J, Dennis Hied.
97. No Room for tno Baby.
It was remarked by Dr. Ballantyne at the Congress of the British Medical Association in 1910 that •'modern civilisation is becoming so complex that there is no place left in it for the baby. Dr. Salmond g philosophy of the liquor question is hardly more complex than the cult of self-regarding pleasure, but it must share with modern civilisation Dr, Ballantyne’s terrible charge that it leaves no room for the baby. He does not expel the baby, he merely ignores it. Less than eighty years ago the first factory legislation proposed in England was bitterly opposed on much the same grounds as those on which Dr. Salmond bases his plea tor the moderate drinker —the sacredness of personal liberty, and the right of a man to do what he likes with his own. But it was on the children’s account that these venerable dogmas were first successfully challenged. The citizens of the future were suddenly discovered to have a higher status than that of mere chattels of the citizens of the present. A generation ago the cause of national education was won in England by the same consideration. It might be a bad tiling for the parents to have their individuality and their sense of responsibility weakened by the intervention of the State. But it wag considered better that they should suffer whatever moral damage might be involved in this inroad upon what Dr. Salmond describes as their '‘Heaven-given freedom” than that their children should be handicapped for life by the lack of education. The bounds of human freedom were not contracted, but enlarged by this restriction upon the sacred right of parents to keep their children ignorant. Incidentally the principal reason why an enlargement now approved by practically everybody has not had all the good effects desired is worth noting. “Intemperance,” said Dr. Creighton, when Bishop of London and a member of the London School Board, “is the chief obstacle to the working of the Education Act."
93. “Damned into tne World.”
Yet. inestimable as is the value of education, it has been well said that “the child’s first claim upon the State is not education, not liberty, not oven happiness; hut it is life, it is health.” Far more glaringly than in the case of education alcohol appears in these essentials as the enemy of the child. Can any agency he named which rivals it as the destroyer-of childhood, or which, when it fails to destroy, stains, maims and persecutes its little victims with a more persistent and relentless cruelty? The taint may even begin before birth, inherited from a drunken or drink-sodden parent, and so cramping, so enfeebling and staining the budding life that death might be a kindlier fate. “Not born but damned into the world” is the often quoted phrase of South’s which seems made to fit these tragedies.
63
Forty-one per cent, of the idiot and imbecile children in the Bicotre Hospital were found to have drunken parents. The English authority quoted b\ Horsley and Sturge (op. cit. p. 252) only puts the percentage at 16; but they infer from our recently-acquired knowledge of the damaging effect of even small doses of alcohol upon the nervous system that the measure of its responsibility for injury to the growing brain of the child is not yet fully determined. Epilepsy, hysteria, feeblemindedness, and mental deficiency are also frequently caused by parental alcoholism. Dr. MacNicholl’s researches for the New York Academy of Medicine into the mental condition of nearly 4000 school children showed that only 4 per cent, of those free from hereditary alcoholic taint were dullards, while, of the tainted children, 77 per cent, were dullards, more than 25 per cent, being very deficient. Of this tainted class 76 per cent, suffered from some neurosis or organic disease, but only 18 per cent, of the former. “In all wine-growing countries,” says Dr. Salmond, with special reference to Palestine, in the time of Christ, “the vintage stands as the symbol of joy, as milk and corn stand as the symbol of sustenance” (S. 13). It may interest Dr. Sahnond to know that it was stated by a medical man during a debate at the Vienna Anl'-alcohol Congress “that the teachers in the wine-growing districts of Lower Austria know that a supply of very bad scholars in any one year denotes a good vintage six vears previously.”
Appalling, indeed, is the toll which is thus levied on thousands of innocent lives by the alcoholic joys of parents or grandparents. A man may indeed find that “a glass of wine makes his pulse beat faster and stronger, and quickens the circulation in the brain, etc.” (S. 30). But the penalty which he may himself have to pay for carrying the foolish experiment too far appears both trivial and well merited when compared with the legacy which he may pass on to his }>osterity in the shape of brains in which the divine light of reason may shine but dimly or fitfully, or may never dawn at all.
94. A Terrible Table.
When the reason is not hopelessly clouded, the legacy may include criminal and morbid tendencies of various kinds. Dr. Robert Jones, Medical Superintendent of Claybury Asylum, informed the Physical Deterioration Committee “that no less than 42 per cent, of all periodic inebriates relate a history of either drink, insanity, or epilepsy in their ancestors.” Thus drunkenness produces insanity and epilepsy in the drunkard’s offspring, and they in turn reproduce a tendency to drunkenness, an excellent illustration of the circle of causation to which Dr. Sahnond refers (S. 37). Of some 86,000 children in the reformatories, industrial schools, and workhouses of Groat Britain, from 75 to 90 per cent, are estimated by competent authorities to owe their position to the drunkenness of their parents. In his valuable little book on “Intemperance,” the Bishop of Croydon gives the following statement of a workhouse superintendent as to the causes which brought the child inmates under his care: —
Fathers drunk 83
Mothers drunk 43
Parents drunk 14
Parents in gaol 15
Parents sick 9
Parents of doubtful character 17
Mother immoral 12
Father a gambler 3
Parents idle . 4
Characters not known 56
Total number of children 256
171
95. From 85 to 99 per cent.
Eliminating the 56 cases in which the characters of the parents could not be traced, we find that 140 out of the remaining 200 children— O'- 70 per cent. —had drunken parents. Dr. Barnardo put the proportion of the children who came into his hands through the direct or indirect agency of drink at 85 per cent. Dr. Guthrie’s estimate for the little waifs in hie Ragged Schools was as high as 99 per cent. The British National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which at the date of its last annual report (October ,_ 1910) had been twenty-five years in existence, and dealt with 1,599,747 children attributes 90 per cent, of the cases to drink. “The children of alcoholic parents,” says Dr. Mary Scharlieb, “are usually found to be stunted in growth, deficient in weight, suffering markedly from anaemia, and in many instances infested with vermin.” Half the ill-nutrition of children according to a “Times” reviewer (sth August, 1904) is the result of alcoholism. Want of clothing is attributable to the same cause as the want of food. In 1894 of 52 pawnbrokers in Birmingham 43 said that the pawning of children’s clothing constituted from 10 to 20 percent, in the general trade. “Public-houses are abundant in a neighbourhood like this,” says Mr. C. Booth in his “Life and Labour of London,” “one to every 80 or 100 adults —all thriving on the custom they receive. In the pawnshops we found the little jackets, boots, and petticoats, which accounts for the half-clad condition of the children in the schools.” “When I see a barefoot child in the East End,” says Rev. Richard Free, author of “Seven Years Hard,” “I know where his boots are, and I know how his boots got there. It is impossible to estimate the awful results of intemperance. In my experience, 99 out of every 100 cases of destitution can be directly traced to this terrible vice.”
96 Deterioration and Death.
As to the death-rate, that is as might be expected. The largest and most pathetic item in Dr. Norman Kerr’s estimate of the number of deaths caused by alcohol in the Tinted Kingdom—which-, as we have seen (f 18), he puts at 120,000 —is “Infant mortality from the intemperance of parents and others, 65,000.” King Alcohol does not figure in the census as the murderer, Dr. Salmond, but this annual procession of more than 60,000 little children to the grave is his work nevertheless. And you must not be shocked if some of us who have an idea that children are the mosr precious of God’s gifts insist upon giving them the preference over the assassin in whose honour your pamphlet has been written. Dr. IV. C. Sullivan found that of 600 children Imrn of 120 drunken mothers, 335 died in infancy or were still-born. Canon Horsley reports an investigation which showed that of 136 children of drunken parents 114 died before their parents. Saturday has been described by an English Judge as “Pay-day, drink day, crime day.” It is accordingly the day on which the littles ones suffer most. Three times as many children are suffocated in bed on a Saturday night as on other nights of the week. The reason for the difference is the drunkenness of their mothers.
For many of these little victims death may ap)>oar to be the kindest escape from utterly desperate and degrading conditions. Yet if anybody can on that account steel his heart to this wholesale massacre of the innocents, let him not lay the flattering unction to his soul that liquor is thereby assisting in the evolution of the race. “If it be argued,” says Dr. Mott, “that alcohol is a weed-killer preventing the perpetuation of poor types, it is probably even more effective as a weed-producer.” “Next to the urbanisation of the people,” said the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, “and closely connected with it as the outcome of many of the conditions it creates, the question of ‘drink’ occupies a prominent place among the causes of deterioration.”
172
97. New Zealand's Experience.
In New Zealand all these evils are fortunately on a smaller scale, but liquor appears to be making much the same proportionate contribution u> them as in the Old Country. The late Mr. Charles Hulke, a Wellington schoolmaster of long experience, stated publicly in 1895 that whenever a child came to school insufficiently clad or shod he knew that the cause was with hardly an exception to be found in the drinking habits of one or other of its parents. The reports of our Societies for the Protection of Women and Children show that drunkenness is the most frequent cause of parental neglect and cruelty. The President of the Wellington Society has stated that during the 13 years of its existence no case of deliberate cruelty to children has come before the Society that had not drink at the bottom of it. In December, 1909, the number of children on the books of our Industrial Schools was 2380. On the 80 per cent, basis for which authority has already been given in the •case of adult pauperism 16) 1900 ot these children owe their position to the drinking habits of thoir parents. In the days before Cliildren’s Courts it was not an uncommon thing to see little children solemnly charged in open Court with being • neglected and deserted children, as though they were the criminals. I have myself seen it done with children so small that if the grim Erewhonian irony of the position had been faithfully carried out by putting them in the dock they would have been invisible. We have fortunately abolished this public parade, but the essence of the tragedy remains under a more decent covering, and must remain as long as there is a liquor traffic*. The drunkard goes to the gaol or the grave, and his children to the Industrial School. Whatever the skill and wisdom brought to the management of these Industrial Schools, the little inmates of institutions where, as has been well said, children are “put to bed by the dozen,” are hound to lack a mother’s love, and most of the intimate joys of home life. No Christian would care to bring children into the world with the knowledge that their destination was to bo a Reformatory or an Industrial School. Has hj? the right to countenance a custom that involves hundreds of other children in this fate or worse?
98. Children Also Among tha Good Gifts of God.
Whatever may he said about alcohol, children at any rate are among the good gifts of God ; and from the standpoint of the child it would be difficult even for Dr. Salmond’s ingenuity to suggest that alcohol is anything but a curse. In the light of the evidence above summarised —evidence at which Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet does not indicate that he has cast so much as a casual glance—is it possible that h© may desire to qualify his adorations at the twin shrines of liberty aaid liquor? Is it possible that he will see that to sneer at “the relatively small number of fools and weaklings with a morbid streak in their blood and brain” (S. 28) does not exhaust his obligations to the victims of alcohol, and is indeed neither a very philosophical nor a very Christian proceeding? There are, of course, texts which he can still quote at us if he likes. That the fathers should eat sour grapes and the children’s teeth be set on edge is a Scriptural saying. “Visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children unto the third and fourth generation” is another. Will Dr. Salmond tell us that all the wrongs and miseries of which childhood is made the innocent victim through the agency of alcohol are to be coloured for Christians by the light of these texts, and piously accepted as inevitable? Will he tell us that we shall be attempting to usurp the functions of Providence if we demand that for the sake of the children alone the hand of a tvrant that is crueller than Moloch or Herod should be stayed? It is surely in Islam and not in Christendom, in the Mohammedan “Kismet” and not in the Christian sense of an active partnership with
66
God in the betterment of the world, that ho must seek for the model of such an argument. We may, therefore, retort upon him in his own words “Swear by the Koran of Mahomet! Your own Scriptures will profit you nothing” (S. 15)-* • ■ weF ■
99. Dr. Salmond’s Contempt for Emotion.
Possibly Dr. Salmond will object that the evidence outlined in this chapter is merely designed to effect another of those “brutal assaults upon the feelings” which are beneath the notice o: a philosopher. Strangely indeed does he misread history and human nature when he affects to discount emotion in this way. Ungoverned feeling is undoubtedly a dangerous guide. On the other hand it is from the heart, and not from the intellect that the primary impulses to the moral improvement of the world have come. Even of the most intellectual people thht the world ever saw, an excellent authority on the subject says; —“In Athens, as in Hindustan, the first protest against' wrong (slavery) came not from the intellect but from the emotions. ”t Is it to the soul or to the intellect that religion makes its principal appeal? Is it intellectual subtlety or a loving heart that is needed to interpret not the conundrums or the theologians, but the words of Christ himself? Even a theologian cannot go far without a heart. It was indeed a favourite maxim of Noander’s that “it is the heart that makes the theologian,” but the Professor’s attitude reminds us rather of Burke’s remark 011 the fanatical philosophers of the French Revolution: —“Nothing can bo conceived more hard than the heart of a thorough-bred metaphysician.” The priest and the Levite were cool enough of head and heart to withstand the “brutal assault” made upon their feelings by the sufferings of the man who had been robbed and wounded. Vet the despised Samaritan who surrendered to that assault, and not the priest or the Levite, was held up by Christ as the model of practical Christianity. It is on the practical side that the Professor’s Christianity as displayed in his pamphlet is so lamentably weak. Logic-chopping and eloquence have their place in such a discussion, but they make, to say the least, a poor substitute for the milk of human kindness. After all it was not the intellect of a “thoroughbred metaphysician,” but the heart of a little child that was made by Jesus the model for the imitation of the faithful.
*1 have perhaps been unjust to Mahomet here. It is recorded that once when his army was halting for the night he overheard a man saying. “I will turn my camel loose and then commit it to Allah.” “Friend/’ said the prophet, “tether thy camel, and then commit it to Allah.” The storv exactly illustrates the prophet’s difference from the Professor on the liquor question. The Professor thinks that to tether the camel would be a denial of God’s providence, but the prophet and the Prohibitionist do not.
+W. R. Paterson: “Nemesis of Nations,” p. 200.
67
CHAPTER XIII.
THE APPEAL TO SCRIPTURE.
In religion
What damndd error but some sober brow
uivuiu™ cnui uut aumc suui-i u low Will bless it and approve it with a text,
" »•* »» null npiuuiu "UU n uc.vb. Hiding the grossntss with fair ornament ?
SIIAKESPEAUE.
These instances are sufficient to teach us how moderate we should be in reasoning from particular precepts, even when they agree with our preconceived opinions. The truth seems to he that the Scripture lays down no rule applicable to individual cases, or separable from the circumstances under which it is given.—
JOWETT.
100. Dr. Salmond’s Special Credentials.
The part of Dr. Salmond’s argument to which his academical distinction, his standing in the Church, and his reputation as a preacher will naturally lend the greatest weight is that dealing with the Biblical aspect of the matter. His unfamiliarity with the facts of the liquor question may be patent and profound. His medical science may be antiquated and impossible. The exemplary warnings which he derives from profane history nay be an entertaining jumble of unhistorical statement and fallacious inference. But as a distinguished minister of the Presbyterian Church, a former Professor of Theology, and a Doctor of Divinity, he may naturally be credited with a special authority in the department of Biblical exegesis and Christian ethics. His arguments under these heads are therefore deserving of the most careful attention from tho r e who not only endeavour to make the Bible their guide and standard in all matters of religion and morals, but find in its teaching a special call to the abolition of the liquor traffic. In reply to those who preach Prohibition in the:- name of Christ and Christianity, Dr. Salmond lavs down this sweeping proposition : — “Tha thought and sentiment prevalent in the Prohibition camp in regard tc wine and its use is at variance with that which pervades the Old and New Testament.” (S. 12.) It must be conceded that this statement fully deserves the italics with which the Professor honours it.
101. The Quantity and Quality of the Cana Wine.
The point on which Dr. Salmond naturally lays the strongest emphasis is that “the narrative of Christ’s ministry starts with the strange storv of the miraculous creation of 126 gallons of wine of excellent quality.” (S. 13.) It is indeed a strange story, and of course it loses nothing in the Professor’s telling. Westrott, whose authority is unsurpassed at any rate among English scholars, does not consider that it was the water in the six water pots that was turned into wine. He is able to point to two strong linguistic reasons in verse 6 (“Draw now”) for supposing that a new supply of water was drawn from another source for the purpose of the miracle. This interpretation, though it does not seem to fit the preceding verses quite so well as the traditional view, has the merit of removing the difficulty of the apparent disproportion of the miracle to the need that called it forth. The quantity would thus be indefinite instead of representing the contents of the six water pots, estimated to contain about 20-
175
gallons a-piece. Dr. Salmond’s glorying in the quantity of the “excellent wine” would thus be abated in the same proportion as the difficulties of others —not all by any means teetotallers —would be relieved. Even, however, if Westcott’s interpretation be not followed, there is no conclusive reason for supposing that all the water in the pots had been turned into wine.
The essential difficulty as to the nature of the miraculous wine remains, however, and here it seems to me that Dr. Salmond is entitled to exult. There certainly is evidence that irhfermented wine was not unknown to antiquity, but I cannot see that the fact helps us in the construction of the present passage. The remark of the not over-refined ruler of the feast indicates that the wine was intoxicating. The complacent reference to the custom of keeping back the bad wine till men were drunk —for such is the natural rendering of the original which is concealed by both our modern English versions s —shows that the ruler had the same standard of excellence in wines as Dr. Salmond. When, therefore, he proceeds to praise the bridegroom for having “kept the good wine until now,” he surely meant that the wine was intoxicating. The only escape from this inference is by supposing that the senses of the ruler of the feast had already passed the point of discrimination—a supposition that would obviously be far more incompatible with the character of Christ than the other.
102. What Practical Guidance from the Miracle?
Having yielded to Dr. Salmond’s contention as to the quality of the wine, and being also willing for the sake of the present argument to concede his contention as to the quantity, lot me ask him one question —Does he consider that the provision of 126 gallons of intoxicating wine towards the close of a wedding feast under the control of a ruler with such a moral code as his coarse speech implies, would be a desirable experiment for any ordinary man to undertake? An affirmative answer would surely put the Professor entirely out ot conn as an authority on the practical ethics of the liquor question. On the other hand, a negative answer would just as clearly put out of court the claim to set up the Cana miracle as an example for the practical guidance of Christians to-day. The Cana miracle led to no deplorable consequence, because it is easy to see that a far smaller degree of the power needed to carry it cut would have sufficed to counteract the normal temptations to excess and the laxity of that easy-going ruler. The power that made the wine was clearly competent to prevent it from doing any mischief, and he would he a fanatical Prohibitionist indeed that would desire any further Prohibition. But what could be safely done in that restraining presence is 110 evidence as to what should be tolerated or encouraged without the same protection to-day. If. then, on the points already considered, circumstances must be held to qualify the application of the miracle to the guidance of modern practice, is it possible to resist the conclusion that the same canon of construction must qualify every other moral that is sought to be drawn either from this miracle or from any other point in tho life or teaching of Christ?
103. Did Christ Make Peace with the Worst Enemy of the Flack?
In what has been said I do not desire to blink the fact that apart from any question of miraculous restraint Christ’s attitude to the drink-
Crook word is the same as that translated “dmnken” in i. Cor. 11 21 If the milder rendering is retained here, there seems to be no reason why it should not he applied to the latter passage also. Dr. Salmond would thus he deprived of an argument on which, as we shall see, he lays great stress.
6g
tng of wine was not that of John the Baptist. If Christ himself, or the writer of the Fourth Gospel, had attached that vital importance to the distinction between fermented and unfermented wines which the aiodern teetotaller draws, the narrative of the Cana miracle would surely have made the point perfectly clear. The silences, no less than the statements, of the Gospels compel me to concede that Christ did not condemn the moderate use of wine. But they make it equally clear that Christ instituted no crusade against drunkenness. If Dr. Salmond carefully pondered this second point, he would probably see good reason to moderate the emphasis wdiich he lays upon the first. Had the fruits of the traffic in strong drink been as we see them to-day, is such an omission conceivable ? Reserving for the present further treatment of this point, which is the crux of the whole case, let me here state the matter thus: —Alcohol is admittedly the deadliest scourge of civilisation to-day. Was it so in Christ’s day? Then the Good Shepherd made peace with the cruellest enemy of his flock. Was it not so in Christ’s day? Then his attitude affords no criterion for us. If Dr. Salmond is prepared to accept the first of these alternatives, he must not be surprised to hear that those of us w r ho have not so learned Christ regard it as both historically false and morally revolting. Yet he can hardly accept the second, for it reduces the whole of his Scriptural argument to a mere beating of the air.
104. “Every Creature of Cod is Good.”
Dr. Salmond’s other capital text is taken from St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy. We may congratulate him upon leaving Timothy’s stomach alone. He does not follow the common practice of treating Timothy’s ailment as a pretext for the indulgence in entirely different prescriptions by moderate*drinkers whose stomachs give them no trouble, and who do not know what was the matter with Timothy’s.* Dr. Salmond selects instead from the same epistle a text which is not limited in the same way to the medical necessities of an unknown complaint. In the course of his defence of “our heaven-given freedom to determine for ourselves what we shall eat and what we shall drink,” Dr. Salmond says:—
“It may not be amiss to remind some of a text of Scripture they have forgotten, in which there is a severe denunciation of Puritan asceticism: ‘Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused.’ ” (S. 56.)
The text here cited (i. Tim. 4. 4) is certainly comprehensive enough, hut it is astonishing that a man of Dr. Salmond’e acumen should not see that if it proves all that he needs against the Prohibitionists, it also involves other consequences which are less convenient. For if because “every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused,” alcohol as a good creature of God is not to be excluded from our dietary, the same conclusion will apply to opium, to the deadly night-shade, and to the typhoid bacillus. Yet Dr. Salniond himself raised no objection to the prohibition of “opium and other dangerous drags” (S. 11), nor is it to be supposed that he would countenance the argument of Plinv that suicide must be right, or Nature would not have provided us in the night-shade with the means of effecting it. Yet this and a thousand other moral and intellectual absurdities flow just as. inevitably from the text on the Professor’s principles as the particular one which he prefers to draw.
*He does, however, parody the text; see S. 15, IT 108 (a)
70
105. What Revelation Does not Tell Us.
The old anthropocentric theory of the universe is quaintly stated by a seventeenth century poet:—
For us the winds do blow;
The earth doth rest, heaven move, and fountains flow.
Nothing we see but means our good,
As our delight, or as our treasure:
The whole is either our cupboard of food.
Or cabinet of pleasure.
Science has long since removed alcohol from the cupboard of food to the cabinet of pleasure, and. despite a few dissentient voices, will shortly order its further removal to that most inaccessible corner of the medicine chest where the deadliest of poisons are kept under lock and key. But the medicine chest and the schedule of poisons do not enter into George Herbert’s scheme of things, as outlined in the verses from which my quotation is taken. He does, however, face the problem of poisons in bis poem on “Providence”: —
E’en poisons praise thee. Should a thing be lost?
Should creatures want, for want of heed, their due?
Since where are poisons, antidotes are most;
The help stands close and keeps the fear in view.
Poisons are by this reasoning included among the good gifts of God in order that His creatures may be the more grateful for the antidote. But the respective boundaries of the cupboard of food, the cabinet of pleasure, the schedule of poisons, and the chest of antidotes have not been determined for us directly by any Divine Revelation. AVe have to settle these problems by the aid of the intelligence and the conscience with which God has endowed us. What is the antidote to the poison of alcohol? Jails and asylums, poor-houses and hospitals, sermons and prayers have all been tried for centuries, and all have been found wanting The one antidote which promises to be effective, and has not been tried is Prohibition. Whether this prescription is right or wrong may be open to argument, but to suggest that it is flying in the face of God’s Providence or limiting His bounty any more than any of the others, involves such hopelessly bad logic that it cannot possibly be good theology.
106. St. Paul’s Real Meaning.
It is not, however, the Professor’s text, but only his use of it that is reasonably open to this line of attack. Two things seem to be perfectly clear with regard to the text itself. There is, in the first place, an obvious allusion to the opening chapter of Genesis, in which, at the various stages in the work of creation, God pauses to contemplate the result: “And God saw everything that He had mn'e and behold, it was very good.’’ Yet nobody supposes that the sun and the moon and the stars, and all the other wonders of creation, were good to eat, except those of them that were good to drink. In spite of the excellence of all that was created man was still left to ascertain hy reason and experience the use of any particular thing, or whether he could make any use of it at all. The other outstanding point in the text is a reference to the .superstitions and harassing limitations of some ceremonial law. The Kssenes forbade marriage and flesheating, and enjoined ablutions of the most elaborate kind after every contact with one of the uninitiated. It is against this or a similar heresy cl- the Gnostics that St. Paul warns Timothy. “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus,” he says to the Romans (14, 14), “that nothing is unclean of itself.” He does not mean hy this that everything is good te eat or drink, or even to touch, but simply that man’s enjoyment of the good things that God Ims provided is not to bo straitened by any arbitrary’ ceremonial cede. To take the warnings of a
7*
Christian missionary against the tyranny of a Maori taboo as imposing a permanent limitation upon the reasoned precautions of civilised statesma-gship under the guidance of science would be as rational as the appeal on behalf of alcohol which Dr. Salmond bases upon the analogous admonition of SI. Paul. The time has passed when St Paul’s protest against superstition can be made to serve the purjroses of superstition in the manner desired by Dr. Salmond.
107. Hosea’s Strong Language.
On the whole it is impossible to congratulate Dr. Salmond on his us© of Scripture texts. The text-hunter is commonly driven to put the letter of a few isolated texts above the spirit of the whole, and Dr. Salmond wisely declined to accept the test when he propounded strange doctrine in “The Reign of Grace.”* In the present controversy he is content to be more antiquated, but even so he sometimes finds it necessary to take great liberties with his texts in order to make them say the thing he needs. His use of St. Paul’s statement that “every creature of God is good” amounts, as has just been shown, to a sheer caricature of reasonable exegesis. Hosea’s warning that “whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart” is a still queerer authority to find in a defence of wine. As glossed by Dr. Salmond this text means that ‘intemperance, like licentiousness, poisons the springs of the moral feelings, sears the conscience and blinds the moral judgment.” (S. 17.) The most elaborate commentator in English on Hosea —the late Professor W. R. Harper—states the meaning to be that “indulgence in wine and harlotrv has driven the people mad.” The text saj’s nothing more about excess in the one case than in the other. Dr. Salmond rails at an alleged Prohibitionist charge against “wine” “that its use (not its abuse) has a ‘tendency to harden the heart, sear the conscience, etc.’ ” (S. 14.) Effects substantially identical, and in the last phrase verbally so, are included by Dr. Salmond in his exposition of Hosea’s diagnosis ; and that diagnosis, Dr. Salmond, if the same strictness is to be applied to the treatment of the prophet’s language as of the Prohibitionist’s, is of the *JS9 (not the abuse) of wine. Indeed, the Prohibitionist statement is the less open to cavil of the two, and is even scientifically unimpeachable, since, as one might expect from people accustomed to accurate speech, it deals with tendencies only. Isaiah’s language, to be presently noticed (IF 110), is equally unguarded with Hosea’s. Nevertheless, the Hebrew /)rophet may steal a horse, but the modern agitator may not look over the hedge.
108. “The Wine of Life.”
But all of Dr. Salmond’s other exploits in misinterpretation and misquotation pale into insignificance beside the audacious liberty that lio has ventured to take with the very words of Christ himself. After referring to our “deep-seated longing to make our conscious existence festive” and “to substitute ‘the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness,’,” Dr. Salmond continues: —
‘I have come to do this for you,’ He said. Tam the vine ; the sap that is in Me will become in you the wine of life.’ (S. 13.)
It is surely a shameful thing for a Christian divine to put into the mouth of Christ words which Christ never uttered. There is no such
*The Bible is a collection of miscellaneous writings; written by men of various mental habitudes and modes of thought and speech ; comprised under practical exigencies to meet current situations; and the writers were thinking of serving any use rather than that of supplying a codex of proof passages. We believe in the real unity of theBible, and that One Spirit dwells in it; but none the less is it an arduous task tlo reduce it to system and doctrinal unity.—“ The lleigni of Grace,” by William Salmond, D.D., 1888, pp. 41-2.
72
saying recorded in the loth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, or anywhere else. “I am the true vine,” said Christ. The rest is Ur. Salmond’s own invention. Christ said nothing about the “wine of life,” nor is any such phrase known to the Bible. We read of “the wine of violence” (Prov. 4-17), “the wine-cup of this fury” (Jer. 25-15), "the wine of wrath” (Rev. 16-19), and even the “wine of her fornication” (Rev. 17-2), but of the wine of life, never. To introduce the flavour of alcohol into the parable of the True Vine is surely alcoholism run mad. Iq would not be more outrageous to pollute the parable of the Good Shepherd with the flavour of mutton. The introduction of such degrading irrelevance by way of comment would be' bad enough. To attempt it under the guise of quotation is an outrage which I dare not permit myself to characterise. Let me ask Dr. Johnson to do it for me. When Dr. Kennicott was reported to be engaged on an edition of the Hebrew Bible, the hope was expressed in Johnson’s hearing that the work would be faithfully done. “Sir,” he said, “I know not any crime so great that a man could contrive to commit as poisoning the sources of eternal truth.” Nobody, of course, would suspect Dr. Salmond of a deliberate desire to falsify or mislead, but Dr. Johnson’s strong language was applied to a scholar whom there was just as little cause to suspect of any such intention.
108 (a). —The Bible and Science.
There is another deplorable use of Scripture texts which Dr. Salmond has allowed himself to make. “Has it ever occurred to Prohibitionists,” he asks, “to substitute in Bible texts their synonyms for wine? For example, ‘Eat of this bread and drink of this irritant narcotic poison.’ ” (S. 15.) The Professor concedes that such a substitution may appear to some “a sort of blasphemous parody,” and that is in itself a sufficient reason why Prohibitionists prefer to leave it to him. It is not, however, to the blasphemy or the bad taste of the device that I desire to object, but to the monstrous attempt which it represents on the part of Dr. Salmond to invoke the authority of the Bible for the purpose of prejudicing a purely scientific enquiry. Declaring that the Scripture was not intended to teach science, but morals only, Bruno dared to maintain the rotation of the earth, and was burnt alive as a blasphemous heretic by the Inquisition. For a similar heresy Galileo was by the same institution degraded, imprisoned and refused Christian burial. Newton and Darwin did not share the fate of Bruno and Galileo, but Dr. Salmond is reverting to the old arguments, though he does not champion the old methods, when he urges against the description of alcohol as an irritant narcotic poison that it would involve a blasphemous parodv if inserted in the Bible.
Whether or not alcohol is such a poison is a question of fact, and there can be no blasphemy in declaring: a fact. “Before all things we must be sure of facts,” said Galileo. “To these the Bible cannot be opposed, else would God contradict Himself. We must consequently expound their sense accordingly, and the capacity of making such researches is also a gift of God.” In another context Dr. Salmond shows himself to be on the side of Galileo and not of the Inquisition. “Certainly,” he says, “if all chemists and physiologists are of one mind on this matter, it is incumbent on us to hear them” (S. 28.) From this it surely follows that we may obey them without fear of blasphemy, even if their conclusions show an advance on those reached in Judaea nineteen centuries ago. “There is no science—Theology or other—really more sacred than another,” said the Rev. T. P. Kirkman, “for there is nothing more sacred than truth. All truth is God’s eternal Thought.” That is doubtless Dr. Salmond's own opinion ; but, unfortunately, no absurdity or inconsistency is too gross for him to commit in his feverish anxiety to seize any stick wherewith he may beat the Prohibitionist dog.
73
CHAPTER XIV.
THE FALLACY OF THE JUDAEAN ANALOGY.
The study of the gospels calls for common sense. In fact, the devotion to the letter of the New Testament is one of the chief impediments to the perception of its spirit.—
F. G. Pkabody.
109. The Crucial Point.
The answer to the literal and mechanical use of Christ’s example behind which Dr. Salmond seeks for shelter is that not the details but only the principles of action can be supplied in one age or nation for the"guidance of another. \Vhat is in one century a menace to the very existence of a nation may to another nation in another century be but a trifling inconvenience, and from another age or nation it may have disappeared altogether. What we ask is that the fate of our own liquor traffic shall be determined on its merits in accordance with Christian principles and not prejudiced by a reference to what Christ did or failed to do under imperfectly understood but widely different conditions. This argument, which goes to the root of every attempt to test any public policy by the standard of Clirist, is conceded by Dr. Salmond to be “plausible.” (S. 16.) From his treatment of St. Paul’s attitude to slavery (S. 18) it may be inferred that he does not deny the abstract soundness of the principle. But he disputes the change in circumstances which the application of it to the liquor question presupposes. “We have not the facts,” he says, “that wonld enable us to compare, the prevalence of drunkenness in Judaea with its prevalence in England or in New Zealand.” (S. 17). If that is really the case, then 1 submit with confidence that the basis needed for the Judaean analogy with which Dr. Salmond seeks to confound us is also lacking.
“Moral questions,’’ says Burke, “are never abstract.” Unless morality can exist apart from society, this statement must be correct; and its correctness as applied to every question of public morals is selfevident. The proper attitude of a nation or an individual towards the liquor traffic is at any rate a question far too deeply “immersed in matter” to be determined in any universal or abstract fashion. It must be determined in any country and for any age by the balance of advantage and disadvantage in the particular circumstances there and then prevailing. In the injunction “By their fruits ye shall know them” we have the authority of Christ himself for applying this criterion. It is by what the tree produces under our own skies, in our own soil, and among our own people, and not by what it may have done at other times and in other surroundings that we must determine whether or not it should be “hewn down and cast into the fire.” “A fortiori,” the experience of other lands is valueless to us if it is too far removed to enable us to say what it was. Yet Dr. Salmond, while affirming that the accessary materials for a comparison of the prevalence of drunkenness in ancient Judaea and in the British Empire of to-day are not to be found, nevertheless ventures to hold up the tolerance of strong drink hy the ancient Jews as a binding precedent for our own guidance. Even a Professor of Philosophy is surely not privileged to eat his cako and have it too.
74
110. Isaiah Misinterpreted.
The matter is, however, not quite so much at large as Dr. Salmond would have us to believe, nor can he be allowed to determine it by those rough and ready methods whereby the rhetorician’s impatience of exact inquiry enables him to arrive at the conclusion he desires. “We know,” he says, with reference to the conditions of Judaea, “that drunkenness was very prevalent, for the denunciations of it and warnings against it in the Old and New Testaments are many and urgent; although the modern remedies are never once suggested. Isaiah is vehement in his denunciations of the drunkards of Ephraim.” (S. 17.) Dr. Salmond then quotes the following well-known passage:—
They also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit anil filthiness, so that there is no place clean.” Isaiah 28, 7-8.
Seeing that the unhappy Prohibitionist, who refers with strictly scientific accuracy to alcohol as “a debasing and degrading physical agent” or “an irritant narcotic poison” is accused by Dr. Salmond of “screaming and cursing” (S. 14) the prophet who uses such grossly intemperate language is lucky to escape without so much as a caution. Dr. Salmond himself cannot be dismissed so lightly, for his treatment of the passage is distinguished by a double blunder. He quotes it as Isaiah’s denunciation of Ephraim, but the verses quoted refer not to Ephraim but to Judah.* The mistake does not affect the Professor’s argument; it merely illustrates his genius for error, even when accuracy would serve his argument equally well, or even better. A more material blunder is the remark that Isaiah’s words “might stand for a description of the most drink-sodden community of the modern world.” It is not so much against a drink-sodden community as against a drink-sodden ruling class that Isaiah takes up his parable. It is the priest and the prophet who are indicted by name in the verses quoted. It is upon the “scornful men that rule this people that is in Jerusalem” that the writer retorts in verse 14 after listening to their gibes. It is as though in a modern community the Ministers of religion and the Doctors of Divinity had combined with the political leaders to bolster up the privileges of the wealthy, and some champion of the rank and file had risen to denounce them-
111. “The Vice of the Wealthy.”
Now this aspect of the matter, which is entirely ignored by Dr. Salmond, is really of fundamental importance. It does indeed touch the crucial point which consigns to the limbo of fallacy the assumed identity between the conditions of the problem in ancient Judaea and those which confront us to-day. Dealing with this very point, the Rev. W. J. Beecher, D.D., says:—
With al! their many points of identity, there is a large and important group of differences. Anyone who will carefully study all the passages in the Bible which speak of the matter will nptfi that in a large majority of them, drunkenness is explicitly spoken of as the vice of the wealthy. Perhaps there is not an instance in which habitual drunkenness is attributed to any who are not wealthy. In modern times, on the contrary, drunkenness is supposed to be much more prevalent among the poor than among the well-to-do. —Hastings: Dictionary of the Bible, art. Drunkenness.
*The first six verses refer to Ephraim, but the Professor’s quota tion starts just where Judah’s turn begins.
75
Plainly, a vice which only affected the wealthy, took toll of their abundance and tilled their vacant hours, was from the standpoint of the statesman, and even the prophet, an entirely different thing from that which to-day, while a curse to all classes alike, inflicts its cruellest penalties upon the poor and helpless, and takes from him that hath not even that which he hath. A malady which, however demoralising to its victims, remains a luxury of the rich and has not touched the mass of the people, the bone and sinew of the nation, has not attained the proportions of a national vice.
112. Drunkenness in the New Testament.
In the New Testament there are even fewer traces than in the Old Testament of a wide prevalence of drunkenness. The references to the subject in the Gospels are of the meagrest possible character. Christ’s solitary warning on the subject couples drunkenness with “surfeiting” or “debauchery,” as it would be better translated, and “the cares of this life” (Luke 21.34) in a way that suggests no less than his silence on other occasions that the vice must have played a comparatively small part in the social economy of Judaea. Other sins are freely handled, but drunkenness only in this passage, which exhorts the faithful to watchfulness against the coming of the Son of man. The Gospels do not record that Christ ever had to rebuke a single drunkard. Outside the Gospels the allusions to drunkenness are more numerous. Warnings against the vice are frequent in the Epistles, but in every case the allusions seem to be to conditions outside of Judaea. In the only instance I can find where drunkenness is referred to within the limits of the Holy Land the charge is expressly declared to have been baseless (Acts 2.15).
The one example which Dr. Salmond cites from the New Testament is the profanation of the love-feast by some of Paul's converts at Corinth (1 Cor. 11.21). Corinth was notoriously the most dissolute city of the ancient world, and had actually passed into a proverb for its licentiousness. An infant congregation mainly drawn from the Gentile population of such a city was attacked by just the vices that might have been expected. Incidentally, it is worth noting that this passage, like that quoted by Dr. Salmond from Isaiah, illustrates Dr. Beecher’s theory of drunkenness as for the most part the privilege of the wealthy in Biblical times. In the Corinthian Church it was the poor man who was hungry at the Agape and the rich man who was drunken. Nevertheless, that St. Paul did not found a Prohibition League in Corinth, nor even attempt to bury the infant Church beneath a total abstinence pledge are highly significant facts of which Dr. Salmond is entitled to make what capital he can. That a Council of the Church in the 4th century abolished the Love-feast by reason of the abuses to which it had led is a proof that the Church did not then display the same servile tolerance of every institution that St. Paul did not condemn as Dr. Salmond endeavours to enforce sixteen centuries later upon a secular State.
113. Climate Counts for Something.
The reason for the comparative immunity of Judaea from the most terrible scourge of twentieth century civilisation is not far to seek. It is not necessary for this purpose to assume any higher degree of original virtue on the part of its inhabitants or any special efficacy in its climate. I may remark in passing that the effect of climate is exaggerated by Salmond or ignored according as best suits his immediate purpose. The cause of drunkenness in the United Kingdom,” he says, '‘is not the existence of drink so much as the cheerless gloom of an empty e ? l ?* en 9 e in a miserable climate; and therefore under the conditions «f bfo in New Zealand under our bright blue skies, drunkenness can never be so bad.” (S. 39.) The skies of Palestine bear an even fainter resemblance to the cheerless gloom of Britain than do those of New
183
Zealand; yet Dr. Salmond entirely forgets this fact in his eagerness to assume that the Judaean problem was essentially the same as that of Britain and New Zealand is to-day. The inconsistency is interesting and characteristic, and it might have been avoided if Dr. Salmond had paid a more careful attention to one of his own authorities. On page 38 of his “excellent work on ‘The Use of Life ’ ” (S. 28) Lord Avebury says :
Surprise has often been expressed that the evils of drunkenness are not more often denounced in the Bible, but we must remember that it was written in a hot country. Drunkenness is especially a vice of cold climates.
114. The Economic Gulf Between Ancient and Modern Conditions.
But whatever may be the potency justly ascribable to climate or any other condition in which there is a marked distinction between ancient Judaea and modern England, it is fortunately possible to point to an economic cause at once certain and efficient. No article of diet can become a general curse in any community unless it can be procured at. such a price as to bring it within the reach of, at any rate, the general body of the people. Now, although the vine was widely cultivated in Palestine, the ideal of every man under his own vine and his own figtree was probably about as far from realisation as is that of “three acres and a cow” in rural England to-day. Wine commanded such a price that it remained a luxury for the rich instead of becoming a regular article of consumption for all classes, and holding out a constant temptation to those least able to afford it. In the article already quoted. Dr. Beecher traces the profound difference between the ancient and the modern problems of intemperance to the immense cheai>ening of intoxicants which the discovery of distillation has produced :
When the price of enough wine or beer to make a man drunk was equal to half a month's wages, and no other intoxicants were to be had, it was impossible for most men to become sodden drunkards. The case is different when an hour’s labour will pay for an intoxicating quantity of cheap liquor. In the older time drunkenness was possible for thousands, where it is now possible for hundreds of thousands. This vast modern extension of the domain of intemperance should not be forgotten when we study the Bible for practical light on the subject.
115 The Potency of Economic Causes.
The fallacy of the supposed parallel between the case of ancient Judaea and that of the England or New Zealand of to-day in regard to intemperance is manifest in the light of this statement. The barometer of English drunkenness rises and falls with the prosperity and adversity of the country—that is to say, with the comparatively small fluctuations of the wages bill. 'Hie increase in the price of spirits bv about ss. per gallon as the result of the 3s. 9d. duty imposed by Mr. Lloyd-George’s Budget of 1909-10 effected an immediate reduction in the consumption from 39.000,000 to 29,000,000 gallons, or more than 25 pqr cent., and in Scotland the arrests for drunkenness fell almost in the same proportion—26 per cent, in the boroughs and 19 per cent, in the counties. If these facts are borne in mind the significance of the economic distinction to which Dr. Beecher calls attention should be obvious, even to one so little accustomed to accurate thought upon the subject as Dr. Salmond. Early in the 18th century, when the ginshops of London were able to advertise that their customers could be “drunk for Id., dead-drunk for 2d., and have straw for nothing,” the country suffered from an orgy of drunkenness to which there has been no parallel before or since. It was the cheapening of spirits owing to the removal of the prohibition of their manufacture by an Act of 1689 r
77
that spread the jiassion for gin-drinking like an epidemic through the laud. Dr. Salmond would of course sneer at another Prohibitionist exaggeration if 1 ventured to say that
Small as is the place which this fact occupies in English history, it was probably if we consider all the consequences that have flowed from it the most momentous in that of the eighteenth century —incomparably more so than any event in the purely political or military annals of the country.
Yet the statement is really that of the highest authority on the social condition of the England of two centuries ago, being taken verbatim from Lecky’s “History of England in the Eighteenth Century,” ist edition, Vof. I, p. 479-
11Sa. Judaean Conditions More Prohibitive Than No-License.
To-day shillings are needed for what pence could accomplish for many years from 1724 onward, and the evil, though still a greater peril to the nation than all the armies and navies of Europe, no longer threatens it with immediate collapse. But where would the danger be if the British working man had to spend not pence or shillings but pounds before he oouid become intoxicated? In New Zealand, on the Judaean scale of half a month’s wages, a man would have to spend about £5 to take him to the point of intoxication. whereas half a crown would doubtless carry any ordinary man all the way at present. Under such conditions, would the publican be able to skim the cream of the workers’ wages? Would a worker be able to indulge even in a monthly burst of intoxication, or in that constant and liberal moderation which medical science now certifies to be far more dangerous? Would there, indeed, be any drink problem at all to demand the anxious attention of the statesman? Preachers would find in the intemperance of the rich a theme for their denunciations just as the Hebrew prophets did of old, but their hearts would not be wrung by the sufferings of the poor, nor could the military and industrial efficiency of a great nation be threatened, as is that of Great Britain and France to-day. The Judaean scale of charges would mean a far stricter degree of Prohibition for the average man than that under which the crime of Clutha and Masterton has been reduced 95 per cent, and 87 per cent, respectively.
116. The Mild Potations of the Ancient Jews.
Additional evidence of the general temperance of the Jews is afforded by their practice in regard to the dilution of their liquor. The admixture of two or even three parts of water with their wine was the established custom, and this with wine which at the most did not exceed 13 per cent, of alcohol must have resulted in a liquor which most moderate drinkers of to-day w r ould probably despise as hopelessly “soft.” Something like an exact measure of the intoxicating power of the normal beverage is provided by a passage in the Talmud, which is thus expounded bv Mr. J. D. Eisenstein in the Jewish Encyclopaedia XII., 534:
Following the Scriptural precept, “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy heart” (Prov. 31, 6), the Rabbis ordered 10 cups of wine to be served with the “meal of consolation” at the mourner’s house, 3 cups before the meal “to open the bowels,” 3 cups between the courses to help digestion, and 4 cups after the grace. Later 4 cups were added. ... So many cups producing drunkenness, the last 4 were afterwards' discontinued. (Ket. 86.)
?S
It is therefore clear that an allowance of 10 cups of ordinary strength was considered perfectly safe, but that somewhere between 1(1 cups and 14 cups the danger-point was reached —probably not for everybody, nor even for the average man, for if so 14 cups could hardly have been’ever prescribed, but at any rate in a considerable proportion of oases. Gigantic, indeed has been the revolution effected in the conditions of the liquor problem since the days when a man needed 14 cups of wine, purchased at the cost of about a day’s wages each, to make him drunk! And the fact that even under the altered conditions of to-day the Jews are still a remarkably temperate people fortifies the conclusion that in the times with which our argument is concerned their temperance must have been such as to put all the English-speaking races of to-day to shame.
117. An Immeasurable Difference Concealed by a Naive Definition.
After supplementing the economic argument by a reference to “the large number of important differences of detail between ancient life and modem life,” Dr. Beecher, in the article quoted, sums up as follows;
The outcome of such a comparison is that drunkenness and its attendant evils, inexcusable, widespread, harmful, and dangerous as they were in the civilisations in which the Scriptures were written, are immeasurably more so in our existing civilisations, and we ought to deal with the problem accordingly.
Not only is this immeasurable difference ignored by Dr. Salmond, but the principal cause of it is ingeniously concealed in his argument by an astonishing liberty which he lias deemed it legitimate to take with the terminology of the subject. Whatever authority any part of the Scripture gives for the use of wine is made to cover whisky, brandy, and all other products of distillation by a definition which is prefixed to his argument and colours it all: —
In the following discussion it will be convenient to use the term “wine” as the generic term for all alcoholic beverages, as it is certainly their typical form. The usage will involve us in less circumlocution, and is in harmony with the use and wont of Scripture and of all languages. (S. 9.)
How the use of Scripture can justify the inclusion in the term “wine” of liquor of an intensity which was entirely unknown in Scriptural times, and which is sharply distinguished from wine in the ordinary speech of to-day passes my comprehension. The device is so franklv anil naively applied that its honesty is beyond question, yet it carries all the advantages of a deliberate verbal legerdemain which begs a good deal more than 50 per cent, of the question in dispute.
118. More Antiquated than Alford.
Dr. Salmond has been accused by the “Vanguard” of taking his hfty-year-cld Alford from the shelf to provide the exegesis with which he hopes to smash the Prohibitionists, but in this respect Alford is quite a model of up-to-date information in comparison with Dr. Salmond. It is true that the learned Dean makes the Cana miracle a text for a fierce attack upon “the false system of moral reformation which would commence by pledges to abstain from intoxicating liquors,” but for my present purpose it is enough to point out that he does not. like Dr. Salmond. take all kinds of intoxicants under his protection. Not only docs Doan Alford make no attempt to cast the sanction of Scripture over noli-S<‘i 1 1 ) 1 11 ra] beverages, but ho anathematises them as uncompromismgly os ajij I rohibitionist. lo Kov. 8, 11 (“And the name of the star is called Wormwood ; and the third part of the waters became wormwood, and many men died of the waters because they were made bitter”),
79
the Dean appends the following note: —“It is hardly possible to read of this third plague and not to think of the deadly effect of those strong spirituous dnnks, which are in fact water turned to poison.”* To Dean Alford ardent spirits are “water turned to poison” which may not improbably “destroy even this fearful proportion of the ungodly (a third) ni the latter days. To Dr. Salmond spirits are not only, like wine, one of the good gifts of God,but they are actually to be smuggled in under the name of wine, and to claim by this counterfeit label the sanction of iic ™ rl P tureS: From the miracle which turned water into wine Dean Alford drew much the same moral as is drawn by Dr. Salmond ; but the Dea l knew too well the meaning and effect of distillation to attempt a definition of wine which would extend the benefit of his conclusion to water turned to poison.
Ihe exact point of Dean Alford’s comment would be more obvious to a Dench than to an English reader. The French' word for “wormwood, following the Greek, is “absinthe,” and its occurrence in this passage in the French versions must strike anv ordinary reader as prophetic of the destruction with which this most deadly 'form of the good creature of God” is threatening France.
8o
CHAPTER XV.
THE PARALLEL OF SLAVERY.
Slaves, obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh.—
Bt. Paul.
119. Christ neither Prohibitionist nor Abolitionist.
“If Christ had appeared wearing the garb of a Prohibitionist,” says Dr. Salmond, “or harping on any dogma of sectarian morals. He would have frustrated his own mission.” (S. 14.)
The argument is sound, but it explodes a good many other things besides the case of Prohibition. If Christ had appeared wearing the garb of an Abolitionist he would just as surely have frustrated his owm mission. Had Christ come forward as an opponent of slavery, a champion of democracy or woman suffrage, or any other kind of political reform, his fate would have been that of a Simon Zelotes, and instead of shining across the ages as the Light of the World, his work might have perished with him Are we on that account to be confronted with the example of Christ and the Apostles, and told that we are flouting their authority whenever we advocate a reform which they left untouched as either outside, the scope of a purely spiritual mission or unsuited to the political and social conditions in which they moved ? There have been hermits and others who have straitened their activities in conformity with such a canon, nor is the type yet completely extinct. One of the devoutest and most benevolent Christians I ever knew would never vote because he could find no authority for it in the Bible. The ordinary arguments of common-sense —that there is nothing in the Bible to make the conditions of Judaea a model for all time, that by the same logic the printing press and the railway might be as reasonably proscribed as the ballot, that Christ’s injunction to love our neighbour demanded the exercise of one of the most powerful instruments for helping him that the citizens of a democracy possess—all fell flat. There was no text in the Bible imposing or suggesting an obligation to vote, and that settled the question.
120. Slavery Essentially Immoral to Dr. Salmond, but not to St. Paul.
It is hardly necessary to say that Dr. Salmond is not embarrassed by any such antiquated bondage to the letter. As an abstract proposition, he is prepared to concede not merely that changed conditions may require a change in the application of a moral principle, but that a doctrine may undergo a “progressive evolution under the pressure of circumstances” (S. 18). Of St. Paul. Dr. Salmond says that “in accepting the social institution of slavery without a protest, and in instructing his converts to prefer slavery, even if they might be free, he might be unaware that he was in contradiction with his own fundamental ethical teaching.” (S. 18.) And he declares that “it would be the moral duty of a virtuous citizen to support a measure .... to suppress slavery because it is an outrage against the fundamental rights of man.” (S. 19.) Dr. Salmond is able to see that slavery is essentially immoral, but St. Paul could not see it. It is unfortunate that the Biblical references to the subject are disguised in our English versions. “Servant” is
188
the translation uniformly given in the text for the Greek word which anywhere else would be rendered “slave,” and the revisers satisfied their consciences by the double subterfuge of placing the alternative rendering “bondservant” —an obsolete and almost meaningless word—in the margin.
■ •Slaves,” says St. Paul (Cel. 3, 22 and 4, 1), “obey in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh. . . . Masters, render unto your slaves that which is just and equal.” What a superb text for a Doctor of Divinity of fifty years ago to apply to the defence of American slavery on precisely the same principles on which Dr. Salmond relies for the defence of the liquor traffic! “Not a word falls,” he might have said, “from the Apostle’s lips in favour of the abolition of slavery, not a sign that it were well to stop the traffic in human flesh.” I have quoted with the necessary changes the very words which Dr. Salmond applies to Isaiah’s failure to found a Prohibition League in Samaria. (S. 17.)
121. “The Very Legislation of Heaven Itself.”
During St. Paul’s captivity at Rome, and just before the date fixed by some high authorities for the Epistle to the Colossians, 400 slaves were put to death under the brutal law which avenged the death of a master at the hands of his slave by the execution of every slave of the murdered man. “Yet not a word falls from the Apostle against the further use of the cruel institution, no suggestion that they might advantageously substitute some form of voluntary service, no attempt to secure a moral betterment by force and external arrangements.” Again I have paraphrased Dr. Salmond’s Scriptural arguments against Prohibition. (S. 17 and 57.) St. Paul indulges in no intolerant fanaticism regarding slavery. Scorning the falsehood of extremes, he merely seeks to regulate and humanise the relation. How convincingly would the Dr. Salmond of an earlier day have thus employed his pious and cultured eloquence to turn the plain authority of the Scripture to the confusion of such dangerous fanatics as Wilberforce or Lloyd Garrison !* But we are, of course, not left to inference or imagination for the use of this kind of argument in defence of slavery by men as able, as learned, and as pious as Dr. Salmond. In the great struggle for the emancipation of the negro in the United States the Churches were declared by Theodore Parker to be “the bulwarks of American slavery,” and the Bible was the weapon with which they fought.
' The Bible, it was said, contains no prohibition of slavery; on the contrarj’, slavery is recognised both in the Old and New Testaments. The Saviour Himself said nothing in condemnation of slavery, although it existed in great aggravation while He was upon earth. If slavery were sinful, would it have been too much to expect that the Almighty had directed at
*lf the men who fought the greatest fight for liberty that nas been brought to a successful issue in our time may be regarded as knowing the nature and value of liberty, then the attitude of the American Abolitionists to the liquor traffic is highly significant. The greatest of them —e.g., Lincoln, Wendell Phillips, Beecher, Sumner, Hale, and Lloyd Garrison —were also Prohibitionists. The most uncompromising of them all is commonly supposed to have had only one idea, but he had at least twm. “God is my witness,” said Lloyd Garrison, “that great as is my detestation of slavery and the slave trade, I would rather be a slave-holder —yea. a kidnapper on the African coast, than sell this poison to my fellow-creatures for common consumption. Since the creation of the world there has been no tyrant like intemperance, and no slaves so cruelly treated as his.” The arch-enemy of slavery considered it a humane and respectable institution in comparison with the liquor traffic.
8z
least one little word against it in the last revelation of His will? Nay, God not onlr permitted slavery, but absolutely provided for its perpetuity; it is the very legislation of Heaven itself; it Is an institution which it is a religions duty to maintain, and which cannot be abolished because God is pledged to sustain it.”
Mv quotation is taken from Westermarck’s “Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas.” I. 711-2, where chapter and verse are given for every - one °f the arguments quoted. I must content myself with a single quotation in full: “From its inherent nature,” said Bishop Hopkins. of Vermont, “slavery has been a curse and a blight wherever it exists, vet it warranted by the Bible. Therefore, as slavery is recognised by the Bible, every man has a right to own slaves, provided they are not treated with unnecessary cruelty,” It is only by such truly Christian logic as this that the Biblical defence of the liquor traffic can be made complete-
122. Christ's Attitude to Slavery.
There is indeed a higher authority than that of Paul for the tolerance of slavery. Not only is there no recorded protest of Christ against, the institution, hut there is one incident which seems to carry his attitude a step beyond that of mere passive acquiescence. The centurion’s servant to whose sick-bed at Capernaum Christ was summoned was really a slave, and as the oroperty of a military officer who was possibly a Roman and certainly a Gentile, he was subject to a much harsher discipline than prevailed among the Jews. Homer saici that a man loses half his manhood on the day when he becomes a slave. Yet Christ, who had this man's destiny entirely at his disposal, restored him to slavery of far from the mildest type, without a condition or a protest looking towards his enfranchisement or the* alleviation of his lot. \\ould Dr. Salmond applv his theory of “progressive evolution under the pressure of circumstances” to this case also? It is fortunately unnecessary topursue so perplexing a speculation. It suffices for my puipose to point out that here on a great moral issue which contemporary Christianity is agreed in regarding as definitely settled, its conclusion is the opposite to that which was sanctioned by Christ. The moral difficulty presented by the liquor traffic is trivia! in comparison. Dr. Salmond declares that “it would be the moral duty of a virtuous citizen to suppress as an outrage against the fundamental rights of man” an institution which Christ sanctioned, Paul may he said to have encouraged, and the Christian Church appears to have accepted without serious challenge for at least three centuries. It is clearly a case of “other times, other morals,” or else of Dr. Salmond’s moral perceptions being keener and truer than those of Christ and the Apostles. On a question which he conceives to be one of intuitive morals. Dr. Salmond does not shrink from claiming a light apparently denied to them. Vet he is also bold enough to insist that on a question of social ethics, which necessarily turns in large part upon such changing accidents as political conditions, scientific knowledge and social habits and customs, the example of Christ and Paul shall be accented as binding upon us absolutely and without appeal.
123. The Bible Fallible as to Slavery, Infallible as to Liquor!
Ur. Salmond labours under the singular delusion that he has improved his position by declaring slavery as “an outrage against the fundamental rights of man” to be essentially immoral, whereas “no one says that the manufacture, sale, or use of wine are (sic) inherently wicke 1 acts.” (S. 19.) Of course he does succeed by this device in putting the case against slavery upon a firmer moral basis than that against alcohol. But the advantage is secured at the price of the abandonment of all that was formidable in his Biblical argument against Prohibition. Christ and Paul are conceded to be not infallible guides on what Dr.
8:,
Saiinond regards as the purely moral issue of slavery. But their judgment upon the question of Prohibition, which he declares to be “simply a political measure” (S. 1!)), is to stand good after the lapse of nineteen centuries, and in circumstances representing a diametrical contrast in practically everything that could influence a political judgment. Dr. Saimond s strange blend of liberalism and literalism—a liberalism whicli is to give himself a tree hand, and a literalism which is to put shackles upon his opponents—completely reverses the normal conception of the value ot the .New Testament as a guide to conduct.
124. A Prodigious Paradox.
,1, £ ch '?g. a h « h l r spiritual and moral level than any other hook, tin New testament has been commonly accepted as supreme in tho«v d,Vrt e ™ ! n^ ear + ng f ri r " th ,f circumstances of its time and country no ! i,; ttCS ’ b " t . that f negation, the book is not treked Pentnal manual except by a few eccentrics who regard Christ s b >et p eell th f thlllss °/ Caesar and the things of God as still . mdniL a ‘ ter . Caesar has ceased to reign, and a free Government has become one of the most powerful agencies for advancing the Kingdom or V?,>v T t Sa ™°nd reverses both positions. The moral judgments of the as'!n ad bl t”’' b,,t . a -5 ‘ guide it must bl Kv 1.,1 / infallible. To such strange shifts is the Professor reduced ti„ amf hy n th at , l , nll l to f' VreSt * I*' Scr ‘, pt ’l re to the detriment of Prohibirt : tr d ,° fSUPPOrtII ! K I ' q ,’ , ° r traffic bv the s ame props » th which 11 nstian divines once held up the tottering fabric of slavery ™ en W 'c re i tIP P rb m ‘ ltbrr of an Abolitionist nor of a Prohibitionist and the Salmonds oi two and three generations ago attached as much importance to the one fact as the Professor himself now attaches to the ”* b V Nevertheless it was through the spirit of Christ that Abolition prevent 'thf ' and . n " misapplication of the letter of the Scripture can triumphant ils“e C SP m Carrv,n e a ki '' d red reform to an equally.
8 4
CHAPTER XVI.
THE LAW OF LOVE.
The Gospel lays down broad principles of action, supreme love to God and love to man for the dear Saviour’s sake, and leaves to the ‘ honest heart,’ warmed by the love of Christ to be the * casuist ’ in each particular ease of conscience. It appears that the law of the New Testament is the law of Love. Then Love must be the lawyer to explain and apply it.—
Archdeacon Jeffreys.
125. Essence and Accident.
Christ did not come to found a sect, to formulate a philosophy or a creed, or even to preach social reform. His contributions to the service of humanity were a spirit and a character, a life and a death. These things are eternal and can he applied through all changes of thought and habit and circumstance for the guidance and healing of the nations with the same freshness and power as when they were first revealed to the world. The various accidents of time and space pass away, but these things do not pass away. Among the accidents the social and political conditions of the time in which Christ lived must be reckoned as no less fortuitous and evanescent than the language that ha spoke or the clothes that he wore. They were all a part of “the muddy vesture of decay" which hedges in all human things, and they have gone. Is one of those accidents to be allowed to govern us or to weigh with us any more than another? Are the limitations imposed upon Christ’s teaching by the immeasurably different circumstances of his time and nation to be held to debar us from giving full scope under the altered conditions of to-day to the spirit of that teaching? I can imagine no more misleading or unchristian sophistry than tiiat which thus attempts to subordinate essence to accident and spirit to letter in the interest of self-indulgence. "Imitation of Christ,” Dr. Salmond admits, “is different from mechanical copying of the essential form and framework of His life" (S. 16). Yet does not the whole weight of his appeal to Christ’s example in the matter rest upon “the mechanical copying of externals”? Is not the true and the spiritual test supplied by the question, What would Christ do here and now in the presence of a stupendous evil?
126. “Thy Neighbour as Thyself."
Christ did not declare war against wine or slavery. He did not proclaim the emancipation of women nor the prohibition of child-labour, nor resistance to tyranny. He touched none of these things directly, hut his Gospel supplied the solvent which gradually undermined one tyranny after another, and is still working in the same direction. From all English-speaking countries and from most of the other parts of Christendom slavery, fortified for centuries by the apparent sanction of Christ and the Apostles, has disappeared. The murderous tyranny of the liquor traffic still survives. Where do those Christians against whom Dr. Salmond does not shrink from proclaiming a “relentless hostility’’ find their Scriptural warrant for believing that Christ is with them in their crusade? They find it in the whole spirit and essence of the Gospel. They find it in the ideal of Christian fellowship.
192
Christian neighbourliness, Christian self-denial, and Christian responsibility which Christ held up. They find it in that parable of the Good Samaritan, of which the early Church insisted on identifying the principal figure with Christ himself, and which assuredly does contain the very heart of Christian ethics. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.”
It was from this text and in answer to a lawyer’s challenge that the parable was preached. If it is approached in the spirit of Christ ajui not of file challenger, its message is plain as daylight. But the clumsy, soulless method of the text-monger is emphatically that of a lawyer. Burke did not consider such a procedure even good enough for politics. He told the electors of Bristol that they should examine their member’s conduct ‘‘like sound judges and not like cavilling pettifoggers and quibbling pleaders, prying into- flaws and hunting for exceptions.” “Look, gentlemen,” he said, “to the whole tenour of your member’s conduct. ’ Is it too much to ask that Christians shall bring the same breadth of mind and the same equitable spirit to bear upon their interpretation of the life and teaching of their Master? “Love,” as the late Archdeacon Jeffreys finely said, “is the only lawyer that can explain the law of Love.”
127. Who is Responsible for the Liquor Traffic?
By this parable the meaning of “neighbour” is extended to include all whom we are able to influence for good or evil. “Therefore,” says Calvin in his notes on the parable, “that any man may become our neighbour, it sufficeth that he is a man.” How is the Christian to discharge has duty to the thousands of his neighbours who are robbed year after year of all that makes life worth living—health, wealth, happiness, and character —or even of life itself, by what has been well described as the Greatest Robber on Earth ? In the application of the parable to the liquor problem the places of the priest and the Levite are clearly taken by the moderate drinker and the license voter. In effect, though not as a rule in intention, they constitute themselves the aiders and abettors of the robber. Who called the liquor traffic into being? The moderate drinker. If everybody was a teetotaller, the liquor traffic would, of course, die a natural death without the aid of a vote. If everybody who drank liquor became a drunkard, by common consent the traffic would be promptly killed. Neither the teetotaller nor the drunkard, then, is responsible for calling the liquor traffic into being or for keeping it going. By a process of exhaustion the responsibility is thus made to fall upon the moderate drinker It is for his well-controlled appetite that the fire is kept burning which claims such ghastly holocausts of the bodies and souls of men. But with the moderate drinker must be associated in this country the licence voter. Once in three years he is given the chance of putting the fire out, but he declines to use it. He disapproves of murder and robbery but he consents to give a vote nevertheless which sanctions both. Is it not a plain inference from the parable of the Good Samaritan that the neighbour of those who fall into the clutches of the Greatest Robber on Earth is the man who. by example, by vote, by the exercise of every power, private or public, that he possesses does all he can not to license or regulate, to tolerate or encourage, hut to destroy the robber?
128. St. Paul on Christian Liberty.
St. Paul’s teaching is just as clear on the point as his Master’*, but more specific. Dr. Salmond, as we have seen, turned to I. Cor. 11, in order to prove that St. Paul did not prescribe any of the modern remedies for the drunkenness in the Corinthian Church. It is, however, unfortunate that the Professor did not begin his studies at an earlier part of the
193
epistle or continue them to a later one. In the thirteenth chapter he would hare found that marvellous eulogy of Christian love which presents so complete a contrast to his own plea for Christian self-indulgence In the eighth chapter, Dr. Salmond would have found that interpretation of the Christian’s duty of self-denial, which contrasts just as strangely with his own ecstatic asseveration of “our Heaven-given freedom to determine for ourselves what we shall eat and what we shall drink” (S. 56). “Take heed lest by any means that liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that arc weak” is St. Paid’s first answer to Dr. Salmond. Then the Apostle proceeds more particularly “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, 1 will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” The parallel passage in Romans 14, 21, proclaims the same doctrine irt terms which include precise mention of “the good gift of God” which Dr. Salmond has undertaken to champion. “It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink, wine, nor anything, whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak.”
129. Self-denial the Key to the Problem.
It is unnecessary for Dr. Salmond to remind me that even in these passages St. Paul’s attitude is not that of the Christian abstainer of today. The circumstances were different, but the spirit was the same. St. Paul was thinking and writing of the ceremonial impurity of food that had been offered to idols. To him it was nothing, but he was not prepared to assert his liberty to the injure of weak consciences \ learned German sums up I. Cor. 8 as follows:—“ The strong sought the solution of the question from the standpoint of knowledge and its rights; the Apostle finds it from the standpoint of lore and its obligations.’’ Thus the spirit of St. Paul’s teaching, which after all is but that of his Master, speaks just as plainly for the liquor problem in the altered circumstances of to-day as it did for the problem of the believer’s attitude to sacrificial meats which was its immediate context. A clearer call to the Christian drinker of to-day to denr himself for the sake of others an indulgence which ho might otherwise hare regarded as legitimate could hardly hare been expected from a message addressed to the special circumstances of St. Paul’s congregations nineteen centuries ago. The consensus of modern Christian authority in favour of this view is remarkable. A reference to half a dozen standard Bible dictionaries—of which those of Hastings and Cheyne and the Temple Dictionary are the most recent—shows that while they give no countenance to the theory that the ordinary wine of the Bible was nnfermented they all agree in regarding the Biblical sanction of intoxicants as inapplicable to the circumstances of to-day, and several of them point, sometimes in the very words of St. Paul’, to self-denial as the kev of the modern problem.
130. Does this Key Fit Prohibition?
How does Dr. Salmond regard this master-key? It is a singular and significant thing that in the whole of his pamphlet the word “selfto be found once, and then in a summary of a Prohibitionist argument to which the epithet “subtle” is applied. A treatise on the liquor question in which the word “self-denial” is what the c<^ n . ir J 1€ ‘ 11 i J ,a^ors . a “hapax legomenon” or unique expression, and from which the spirit is entirely absent, surely deserves a place in that museum of moral and religious curios to which the Christian pleas for American slavery have already been consigned. Let me be careful, however, not to do Dr. Salmond any injustice. In what he describes as the J rolubitionists more subtle line of defence’ he includes “the obligation to unreserved self-denial for the good of others and the true findiSr 1 i ™ irselvos 111 whok-hearted giving ourselves away in service” (S. l< ’ subtlety ol such arr appeal to the fundamental conception of
$7
Christian duty is not obvious to me. It is, however, too much for Dr. Salmond. He admits the principle itself, and the contention that changed circumstances may give it a new application, to be “sound and important.” But he proceeds;—“ Leaving out of sight their possible application to personal voluntary Abstinence, for which they furnish a powerful although not conclusive argument, I have yet to ask how they can be supposed to apply to Prohibition?” (S. 18-19).
131. Two Professors Differ.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Salmond should thus be content to leave out of sight what for most Christians is the essence of the whole problem. It is singular how little most men are troubled by such fine-spun theories about the functions of the State as those in which he delights, after they have once made U P their-minds that either for their own sakes or for the sake of others it is their duty to abstain. There are indeed thousands of men and women who have been voting for NoLicense without being themselves abstainers. Dr. Salmond sneers at the inconsistency of these voters, but without reason (S. 9). To abolish the temptations of the open bar for themselves and others is surely a rational and a moral object even for those who have no intention to abstain altogether. The size of the vote for total Prohibition will soon demonstrate not only the sincerity of these electors in the past, but aHo their readiness to make still larger personal sacrifices for the good of their fellows. The late Professor F. W. Newman quotes Lord Harrington. the first nobleman who joined the United Kingdom Alliance, as having said :
“I like a glass of wine, and think it does me good ; and as long as I can get it legally, I mean to drink it. But 1 see that there are tens of thousands whom our drink traffic, as now conducted, frightfully ruins; and sooner than let this go on, I will, when that proves necessary, give up my glass of wine. ,r
132. The Personal Equation.
Was not Professor Newman right when he declared, such a man “not only to be consistent and sincere, but to have a merit which none can claim who hold that alcoholic drink is in itself bad for all men”? An appreciation of the force of example and of the contribution made by every purchaser of liquor to the strengthening of the great financial power which is a far more serious obstacle to reform than the opposition of the consumer would surely make these people total abstainers as well as Prohibitionists. But their sincerity should protect them from Dr. Salmond’s scorn. On the other hand the number of those who having decided, whether from Christian or from prudential motives, to abstain, have any difficulty about voting to secure the same benefit for others is infinitesimal. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Dr. Salmond would be an exception to the rule if he once could bring himself tosee that for the sake of others he ought to abandon that whereby somany a less fortunate brother “stumbleth or is offended or is made weak.” A Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy is no more exempt than other men from the law of the “personal equation” ; and Dr. Salmond would probably be surprised to see how speodilv the fabric of his ingenious dialectic would dissolve into thin air, if the foundations of habit and prejudice were once removed. The robust common sense with which Dr. Johnson brushed aside all the secondary excuses for drinking applies with almost equal force here: “After a man has brought himself to relinquish the great personal pleasure which arises from drinking wine, any other consideration is a trifle.”
133. The Professor Has Made Total Abstinence an Issue.
Dr. Salmond is indeed grossly mistaken when he supposes that he has really left the question of total abstinence out of sight, and confined himself to an attack on Prohibition. His pamphlet is a strenu-
88
ous and impassioned plea, not merely for the legal right to drink, but also for the moral right so to do, and for the benefits of the practice. His eulogies of a purely carnal pleasure are not new in substance. What is striking about them is that a common-place which is as old as human appetite, or at any rate as human speech, and of which nobody is ever likely to lose sight, should be urged with such a passionate intensity by a distinguished divine and invested almost with an air of religious "sanctity . “Deep-seated in our souls is the longing to make our conscious existence festive; to substitute ‘the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness’; to have our hearts inspired with glad enthusiasm, overflowing with delight in the gift of being that God has bestowed on us” (S. 13). How beautiful it all sounds, how genuinely pious! It is only when the spell of the Professor’s eloquence has passed away that we realise that all he has told us is that pleasure is pleasant; and we really needed no reverend divine and no fervid eloquence to assure us of the fact.
“In the wreck of human dubitations,” said Carlyle with reference to the French Revolution, “this remains indubitable —that Pleasure is pleasant.” Are we to say that among all the certainties of the Christian’s creed this same truth remains the most indubitable of them all —that pleasure is pleasant? It is at any rate with something of the fervour appropriate to that kind of certainty that Dr. Salmond takes up the cudgels for the defence of the moderate drinker. The quickening of the circulation in the brain, the warming ■ of the abdominal viscera, the enlargement of geniality, the chasing of the cloud from the brow and the smoothing away of its wrinkles (S. 30-31) are, as we have seen (H 82), some of the joys for which, with a most seductive blend of physiology and poetry, Dr. Salmond pleads so passionately. A poet alone can do justice to the terrible shadow that is over them;
And what shall change that angel-brow,
And quench that spirit’s glorious flow?
Relentless law's that disallow
True virtue and true joy below.
134. No Suggestion for Reform.
These glowing panegyrics on a purely carnal pleasure, these beatific visions of the alcoholic paradise would occasion less surprise and regret if they were accompanied by any warning as to the terrible personal risk at which the joys are purchased, any recognition of the appalling and often undeserved misery in which their source involves thousands of our fellow-creatures, any practicable scheme that sheds upon these sufferers a single ray of hope. But the only warnings relate to the dangers of endeavouring too rapidly to make this earth too like a heaven. The only regrets arc of a perfunctory character which seems perfectly flat and frigid beside the glowing colours bestowed upon the other side of the picture. Of practical suggestion for reform there is none.
“May not honest men come to opposite conclusions,” asks Dr. Salmend, “and yet be equally zealous in their hostility to drunkenness?” (S. 19). Yes, they may, but an honest man who devotes a tract of more than sixty pages to praising the joys of alcohol, minimising the miseries that flow from it, and attacking the only practical remedy that is before the public for their removal, and cannot find space for a single suggestion for reducing them, must not be surprised if a zeal and a sympathy so carefully dissembled are entirely overlooked by those who have only his pamphlet to guide them
135. “Special Abhorrence” for the Drunkard.
Possibly I am doing the Professor an injustice in saving that he has no suggestion at all to make for reform. The dubious glimmer of a single vague and tentative suggestion does appear once to make the
196
general darkness the more conspicuous. “Perhaps,” says Dr. Salmond, after referring with satisfaction to the failure of the Prophets and Apostles to apply any of the modern remedies to the evils of drunkenness —“Perhaps we might make as good progress by adoption of their attitude, and by making the drunkard feel himself our special abhorrence. instead of converting him into society’s pet moral patient who is only to be pitied” (S. 18).
The justice of the reference to making the drunkard “society’s pet moral patient” has already been considered (IT 27). It is certainly to be feared that Dr. Salmond’s specific of “special abhorrence” for the drunkard is not going to help matters much. This surely was not Christ’s method. The woman whom the scribes and the Pharisees proposed to stone was taken in a sin which, according to Dr. Salmond, claims ten times as many victims as drunkenness, and stands far higher in the evil hierarchy. (S. 31.) Yet Christ displayed no abhorrence towards her. but rather pity—that dangerous weakness which Dr. Salmond would always like to see subordinated to “equity” (S. 28), and which fails almost entirely to disfigure his pages. On this occasion as on others Christ’s abhorrence was rather reserved for the self-righteous, the callous, the conventionally respectable than for the abject and the outcast whom Dr. Salmond desires to make the target of his scorn. Bat surely it is not abhorrence but sympathy, not hatred but love that must solve the problem of the drunkard.
136. Not Abhorrence but Love.
It would be interesting to see Dr. Salmond testing his theory in practice. How many drunkards is he going to reclaim by explaining thii he can admire them if they limit themselves to one or two glasses, but can only abhor them if they take six? To take the victim by the hand, to show him that you respect him and feel for him despite his weakness, to urge upon him that total abstinence is his only chance and to prove your own consistency and smooth the pathway of reform for him bv taking the step yourself—this though it may savour to Dr. Salmond of '‘converting the drunkard into society’s pet moral patient” is at any rate a possible treatment, whereas his own is not. But those who have tried the experiment know how baffling and heart-breaking a business it is, how desperate are the chances of success while the breweries and the bars are in full blast. As Cardinal Manning said: —
It is mere mockery to ask us to put down drunkenness by moral and religious means, when the Legislature facilitates the multiplication of incitements to intemperance on every side. You might as well call upon me as the captain of a sinking ship, and say, “Why don’t you pump the water out?” when you are scuttling the ship in every direction?
go
CHAPTER XVII,
THE PROFESSOR AND PROVIDENCE.
I searched in mine heart how to cheer my flesh with wine, yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom.—
Ecclks. 2.3.
And reasoned high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate—
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute-
And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.
Milton.
137. “Honest, Stalwart Men” versus “Fools and Weaklings.”
But self-denial for the sake of others is, as we have been, not an element that enters into Dr. Salmond’s philosophy of the liquor problem. “Must the millions of honest, stalwart men be thrust aside,” he indignantly asks, “all for the problematical benefit of a relatively small number of fools and weaklings with a morbid streak in their blood and brain?” (S. 28.) Dr. Salmond’s most ardent admirer will hardly suggest that this is exactly in the vein of Jesus or Paul. “Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling!” said Jesus; “for it must needs be that the occasions come, but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!” No woe is here pronounced upon the fool and the weakling; their woes are obvious enough. The censure falls upon the “honest, stalwart men,” through whom the stumbling-block is placed in the way of the fool and the weakling. “If meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat meat while the world standeth and call him a fool and a weakling, and scoff at the morbid streak in his blood”—no, St. Paul did not say that, nor can we suppose that even after Dr. Salmond has treated the tenth chapter of Luke with the same free hand which he has applied to the fifteenth of John, it will prove to be the Good Samaritan who passed by on the other side, murmuring, “Fool and weakling!” “Fools and weaklings” and “special abhorrence” —a truly helpful and a truly Christian message for the numberless sufferers from the cruellest of the preventible scourges which afflict humanity.
As to the “millions of honest, stalwart men” who are not to be thrust aside, the fundamental ethical question is, as previously stated, whether they will not consent to thrust themselves aside. And the second point is that they can never be thrust aside by a few fools and weaklings, but only by a larger number of millions of men as honest and stalwart as themselves, but inspired by higher conceptions of Christian obligation. As to the relatively small number of the fools and weaklings, it has been competently estimated that there is not one family in five but lays a victim on the altar of the god of Dr. Salmond’s idolatry. To the sufferings of this not inconsiderable proportion of victims add those of their families and their friends, and the total is seen to be something very different from the negligible quantity assumed by Dr. Salmond. Are the wives and families of the slaves of alcohol to count for nothing? Are babes and sucklings to bo placed in the lowest and most contemptible class of “fools and wettkhugs' ’ ?
198
“Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of the least of these—.” God forbid that 1 should suggest that Dr. Salmond’s heart approves of such a conclusion ! 1 merely claim the right to show to what his logic leads.
138. A Christian Ecclesiastes.
Such indeed is the astonishing result of a careful perusal and reperusal of Dr. Salmond’s arguments. “If 1 had not been informed, sir. that you are a gentleman,” says one of Sheridan’s characters, “I should not have inferred it from this interview.” If we had not known that Dr. Salmond as a Christian must regard self-denial for the sake of others as a vital part of religion, we could hardly have inferred it trom his pamphlet. The task which Walter Pater set himself in “Marius the Epicurean” has been described as that of proving the intimate relationship between the Epicureanism of the second century and Christianity. The effect of Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet is conversely to show how slender is the boundary between the Christianity of the twentieth century and Epicureanism. The grosser kinds of pleasure-seeking are, of course, as remote from his ideal as from that of the author of “Marius.” His is no such crude philosophy as “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,” but rather something after this strain :
Let us eat and drink with moderation and seemliness, receiving the good creatures of God with thanksgiving. Let us not be over-anxious for the lot of those to whom the abuse of these gifts brings the woes that God has ordained. I saw one man denying himself because others are drunken, and I said, Behold an ascetic! This surely is vanity and vexation of spirit.
Other men I heard reviling strong drink and not the drunkard, as though one should blame the axo and not him that heweth therewith. These men cursed and screamed at this good gift of God, and demanded that a law should drive it from the land. I saw that without wine there is no pleasure, neither any virtue without temptation. This also was vanity and vexation, of spirit.
The wise man foldeth his hands together, but the fool doth fume and fret. God is calm: His patience is infinite, and He has infinite time to work in. Let the finite creatures whom He has made in His image at least imitate His tranquillity and refuse to usurp the ways of His Providence. All else is vanity and vexation of spirit.
139. The Professor’s intimacy with Providence.
Anybody who will take tbo trouble to glance at the last few pages of Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet will find there all the substance and most of the phraseology of my imaginary quotation. On the last point which it touches, I have to acknowledge that the Professor has the advantage of me. I cannot pretend to anything like that intimate acquaintance with the ways of Providence which he professes. Of the proposal to abolish drunkenness by the prohibition of‘‘wine” he tells us that “God’s providence does not run on these lines” (S. 45). Yet God’s providence was not invoked to anathematise the abolition of opiumsmoking by the prohibition of opium (S. 11). Any action of the State is in accordance with the Divine Providence if it pleases Dr. Salmond ; otherwise not. The arrangement is a delightful one for him, but to those who are less highly privileged it suggests an undue familiarity with the Court. It prepares them, however, to see that when he says that “Legislatures have no call to take on them to be God’s providence in the world” (S. 55) he does not mean that Legislatures would be better engaged in doing the devil’s work than God’s, but that they sometimes do things he does not like. Except by thus providing an
199
imposing euphemism for his moral likes and dislikes it cannot be said that Dr. Salmond’s appeals to the Divine Providence help the argument at all.
14b. That Intimacy Provides no Practical Guidance.
The expectation of some practical guidance from the warning against flouting God’s Providence by “concerning ourselves too much about prospective moral dangers and about clearing the paths of men from temptation” (S. 45) is entirely disappointed. To multiply the temptations to vice in order that virtue may flourish, or at any rate not to diminish them, might seem to be a necessary corollary, • but it is expressly disclaimed. “1 should not like to be understood.” savs Dr. Salmond, “as denying the duty of removing snares and stumblingblocks from the moral pathway, nor as if implying that we may leave alone all temptations to evil in order to give virtue materials on which to exercise itself and become strong” (S. 46). By this deplorable lapse into common sense Dr. Salmond removes the clue with which he seemed to have provided us for the moral labyrinth, and the whole matter is at large again. We must not “concern ourselves too much about prospective moral dangers” ; we must not “over-anxiously set ourselves to improve the constitution of the world and of man as God has ordered it” (S. 46). Christ warned us not to be over-anxious about the cares of this world ; Dr. Salmond warns us not to be over anxious to improve the world. Christ’s warning seems to be still the one that is the more needed. According to Dr. Salmond, we may set about improving the constitution of the world without impiety, but the moment we become over-anxious about it we are improperly interfering with God’s Providence. How are we to know when zeal is passing into over-anxiety and undue interference? The disapproval of Dr. Salmond is the only test provided. Without him at their elbows all the time “simple honest men and pure gentle women” have no means of telling when thenanxiety is exceeding those bounds of propriety beyond which it may become an insult to the Almighty. There is at least this in common between the ways of Providence and those of Dr. Salmond —that both are inscrutable and past finding out.
141. Should We Imitate the Tranquillity of Cod?
In a peroration of which even one who entirely dissents from its moral purport is bound to acknowledge the Dr. Salmond seeks to justify the purely negative attitude which he has adopted. By common consent the liquor question is the gravest and most urgent of all of the social problems of Western civilisation. But he has not a solitary suggestion to offer. The Johnsonian warning quoted in my opening paiagraphs that “so many objections might be made to everything, that nothing could overcome them but the necessity of doing something,’ does not trouble Dr. Salmond, for he recognises no such necessity in the present case. He considers himself entitled to multiply objections and to suggest nothing, and after 60 pages of this barren procedure he devotes all the resources of his eloquence to a moving plea that we should imitate the infinite patience of God. He pictures God “surveying at one glance the weltering chaos of the world’s sin.” and seeing _and hearing all its miseries with “an undisturbed tranquillity” (S. 67), I for one absolutely refuse to believe that God is able to survey all the sin and misery of the world with undisturbed tranquillity, or that if He can the case is one in which the creature should endeavour to imitate the Creator. Though God were able to contemplate that “weltering chaos” with a tranquillity which does not pass into indifference, such a feat would seem to be beyond the finite faculties of man. It is indeed strange how closely the theology of Dr. Salmond, like his ethics, approaches to that of Epicurus. The Epicu-
200
rean gods lay beside their nectar, and the faint, far-off voices of human misery came wafted to them on the winds,
“Like a tale of little meaning, though the words are strong.”
Tlie wise mail of Epicurus was to imitate the serenity of the gods. So it is the alleged tranquillity of God that Dr. Salmond holds up as our model. His wise man also is to sit beside his nectar with a tranquillity of enjoyment undisturbed by any extravagant anxiety for the sufferings which the source of his pleasure entails upon the world. Bufferings there must be, but is that our affair? Are we our brothers’ keepers? God has so willed it. Burke speaks of the old Whigs as not being “of that paradoxical morality to imagine that a spirit of moderation was properly shown in patiently bearing the sufferings of your friends.” There appears to be ample scope for this species of moderation in Dr. Salmond’s philosophy.
142. Stones for the Temple
What “immeasurable sublime purpose which can in no wise fail” (S. 67) God may hare planned for humanity and how man’s institution and toleration of the liquor traffic can assist in carrying it out, Dr. Salmond, notwithstanding his intimate acquaintance with the counsels of Providence, omits to give the faintest indication. Sometimes his soothing picture of the Divine tranquillity reminds us of that darkest depth of Carlyle’s spiritual romance, which is entitled “The Everlasting Xo” ; —“ls there no God, then? but at best an absentee God, sitting idle, ever since the first Sabbath, at the outside of His Universe, and seeing it go?” If God is content to sit peacefully by and see it go, should not His creatures be content to do the same? Such appears to be the drift of the argument, yet the fatalistic conclusion is saved from pessimism by a vague Tennysonian faith. “I could scarce endure to live,” says Dr. Salmond, “were I not persuaded that the love and wisdom of the everlasting Father will make out of the world’s very sin and misery stones wherewith to build His temple” (S. 67). The secret is out at last! We suddenly see how' the Professor’s piety is able to reconcile the liquor traffic with the Divine governance of the world. If sin and misery are to furnish stones for the building of the temple, there will be few quarries, indeed, tliat will provide a nobler contribution than this “good gift of God.”
143. “Toiling on“—At What?
But in accordance with his usual practice Dr. Salmond hastens to repudiate the conclusion w'hich his premises seem to carry:
The thought does not carry the moral that we need not trouble ourselves very much on account of the world’s condition. But it does carry this moral, that we should not fret and fume, but, toiling on, imitate the patience and hopefulness of God. who never hastens and never loiters, and has eternal vears in which to execute His counsels (S. 67-8).
We are not to fret and fume. That has been made abundantly clear; but it is the reference to “toiling on” at which we are entitled to boggle. At what are we to toil? and how? and why? For more than 60 pages Dr. Salmond has been unfolding his philosophy of the liquor question. He has endeavoured to prove that drinking “wine” is pleasant, that it is wholesome, that the contemplation of its darker side —for it has a darker side (S. 27) —should not be allowed to disturb the even flow of our enjoyment, that in this indulgence we may shelter ourselves behind the example of Christ, and that in resisting any attempt to deprive us of the indulgence we may plead the methods of Providence.
94
144. St. Paul a Better Guide.
Where in all this does the idea of toil come in? There is no suggestion that pleasure is to be pursued with such zeal as to make it a doil. and there is no room for toil at all except in the resistance which it may be necessary to offer the assailants of our liberty. The Professor can hardly mean that negative toil of this kind will offer sufficient scope for the activity of a Christian. Yet his pamphlet may be searched in vain for any other suggestion of activity in relation to the drink problem. The only possible exception is that tentative reference to the need for “making the drunkard feel himself our special abhorrence”— an operation in which under the most favourable conditions we can hardly “imitate the patience and hopefulness of God.” All this entrancing eloquence about keeping calm and toiling on and imitating the patience and hopefulness of God is thus reduced to a glittering transparency. The contrast with the teaching of St. Paul to which Dr. Salmond appeals more than once is marked indeed. St. Paul reminds us that we ail are members one of another, that the strong should fcrgo his otherwise legitimate pleasures for the sake of the weak, and that we are all “God’s fellow-workers” (I. Cor. 3, 9). Here is all that the most ardent Prohibitionist can desire as a basis and an inspiration for his creed. How poor and paltry, how flat and dead, how cold and repellent appears in comparison Dr. Salmond’s ingenious plea for selfindulgence and “laissez-faire”! His eloquent flow of religious phraseology is quite inadequate to disguise the essentially selfish character of an argument having, as St. Paul might have said, “a form of godliness hut denying the power thereof.”
445. The Promise of Something Better.
“If Prohibition is not to be attempted,” says Dr. Salmond in his concluding paragraph, “it does not follow that nothing is to be attempted, and that nothing can be done; and it may be a future task to deal with the positive and constructive methods.” It is in methods of this kind that the true test of religion and statesmanship lies, and it is to be hoped that Dr. Salmond will not long delay a treatment of the subject which will fill the deplorable gap left by his present pamphlet. Two things may be safely prophesied of his constructive proposals if ihey are to be of any real value. They will not look to prophets and apostles for exact precedents with any more success than the remedy he attacks. But they will be informed by the spirit of Christ and rally Christians not to the defence of their rights hut to the discharge of their duties. In the meantime arguments which are limited to negation and destruction, and contribute absolutely nothing even to the mitigation of an appalling evil, must surely fail to enhance the writer’s reputation in the Church or the reputation of the Church in the world which it is commissioned to overcome.
146. Meanwhile.
Since what I had intended to be my last paragraph was in type, it has become clear that Dr. Salmond is still too busy to attend to the constructive work that he has promised. Fresh contributions from his pen have begun to appear in the newspapers, but they are all of the same negative, conservative and barren character as the pamphlet itself. If he had had anything to say that could do the people any good, anything that could help to break the back or weaken the grip of a cruel and greedy monopoly, anything that could rouse the public conscience to the relief of its victims, the brewers would not consider the matter worth advertising from end to end of the country. the brewers know their own business best, and apparently the Professor knows his. In history and in science, in political philosophy and in
95
Biblical exegesis, in the treatment of facts that are patent to everybody, and in the quotation and interpretation of easily accessible authorities, Dr, Salmond has been proved guilty in these pages of blunders that would have shattered a less firmly established reputation. But as long as he continues the contributions now appearing - in the press we may expect the brewers and their friends to “be to his virtues very kind.” and “to his faults a little blind.” The great constructive work which would fall under the second head will evidently be delaved till after the coming poll.
204
INDEX
NOTE. —The Numbers refer to the Sections.
Alford, Dean ... ... ... ... ... 118
Asceticism and Prohibition ... ... ... 66-7
Avebury, Lord ... ... ... ... ... 15, 85-6, 113
Alcohol—A Deceiver ... ... ... ... 80-1
A Poison ... ... ... ... 78 (For effects, see Children, Crime, &c.)
Barnardo ... ... ... ... ... 95
Beecher, W. J. ... ... ... sn, 114, 117
Booth, Chas. ... ... ... ... ... 95
~ General ... ... ... ... ... 13
Buxton, Chas. ... ... ... ... ... it
Calvin ... ... ... ... ... ... 68, 69, 71
Cana, Miracle at ... ... ... ... 101-2
v>aua, iuuaut ai ... ... ... Children ... ... ... ... ... 92-9
VU,,UI '- U ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• V- V Christianity, Essence of ... ... ... ... 125
Christianizing Influence of Liquor on Hindoos ... 32-3 *T „
~ Turks ... 31
Climate ... ... ... ... ... 113
Committee of Fiftv ... ... ... ... 22, 24, 56
Crime ... ..’ ... ... ... ... 14’ is> 23, 24, 24 (a), 50, 85
Cromwell ... ... ... ... ... 70-2
Cruelty ... ... ... ... ... ... 19, 95, 97
Cruisers and Sly-Grog ... ... ... ... 62
David ... ... ... ... ... ... 66
Death ... ... ... ... ... ... 18, 96
Divorce ... ... ... ... ... 19
Doctors ... ... ... ... ■ ... 7, 13, 54, 77-8, 81-3, 87, 92-6
~ Points of Agreement ... ... ... 77
Drunkard, Causes of ... ... ... ... 27, 28 XT.* * ... T._ TT.I 1 1 ALI
„ Not to be Helped by Abhorrence ... 135
~ Way to Help ... ... ... ... 136
"Drunkenness ... ... ... ... ... 109-112
~ The Vice of the Wealthy in Bible Times in, 114-5
„ In N.T ; 112
Economic Causes, Potency of ... ... ... 114-6
Eliot, C. W. ... .’. ... ... ... 56
“Fools and Weakling's” ... ... ... ... 137
* vicnMmgs ... ... ... ... IJ/ r ranee ... ... ... ... ... ... 34
Functions of State ... ... ... ... 36, 48
9 8
NOTE.-The Numbers refer to the Sections.
Gambling • • 4 ° „ ~ Xt
Gladstone ... 10, it, 21, 84
Hulke, Chas 07
Huxley 40
Idiocy ... ... ■" 4 *’ 3
India T ... 17. OJ.
Insanity ••• ••• 1 7, 94 T . 1 . ... 1A
Italy 34
Jeffreys, Archdeacon ... ... ■■■ 26, 126
Johnson’, Dr. 2 - » 2 . 108 - '3 2
fudges ’ ... ... ••• 13,14,20,23,35. 37
Kant ... ... • 6 4, 79
Kerr, Dr. Norman iS, 96
Law as Educator ... ••• 58-60
Laws, Sumptuary ... ••• 73 T jc. jfi
Liberty ... ■■■ ••• 45, 40
Christian ••• 89, 90, 128.
Natural ... ■■■ 44
Manning, Cardinal ... ■■■ '36
Moderate Drinker Responsible for Drunkard ... 27
Liquor Traffic 127 yy yy yy 1
Newman, F. W. ... ••• ••• *3 l-2
Opium ... ••• -.. 10 -l
Paul. St. ... ... 106. 120-1, I2y r 129, 144
Pauperism ... ■■■ '6, 2 3, 2 4, 94‘5, 9 T
Plato -- ...... 82, 88-91
Police, No Work For, Under Prohibition ... ... 61
Prohibition ... ... 50, 55
~ Covered by Police Power .... ... 37
Meaning- of American Successes and Failures ... ••• 57
~ Success Admitted by Dr. Salmond ... 5°
Puritans ... ... ■■■ ••• ••• 70-72 ( a )
Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia ... ... ... 13
Salmond, Dr
Alcohol, Joys of, Depicted by ... ... 82
Alcohol Classed as “Good Gift of God” by ... 104
Alford, Dean, More Antiquated than ... ... 118
Authorities Quoted By, and Turned Against Him —
Avebury, Lord ... ... ... ... 85-6. 113
Committee of Fifty ... ... ... 22, 24, 56-
Plato ... ... ... ... •• 88-91
Blunders of, as to —
Exorcism of Evil Spirits ... ... ... 51
Gambling (2) ... ... ... ... 40
90
NOTE.—The Numbers refer to the Sections.
Salmond, Dr., Blunders of (Continued) —
Gladstone ... ... ... ... 10-12-
Isaiah (2) ... ... ... ... n 0
Prohibitionist “Exaggerations” (10) ... 10-20 (a).
Puritans (4) ... ... ... 70-7*2 (a)
Sumptuary Laws (5) ... ... ... 73-4 (See also Misquotations).
Children, Ignored by... ... ... ... q 7
Distillation, Effects'of. Ignored by ... ... 117
Drunkards. Declares No Census of ... ... 21
~ Prescribes “Special Abhorrence” for 135
Emotion Contemned by ... ... ... qq
“Fools and Weaklings” Contemned by ... 137
Gladstone Fallaciously Attacked by ... 10-12
i< ~ Approved by... ... 84
Heaven, Declares Right to Drink Comes from 45
Logic, Lectures Judges, &c.. in ABC of ... 25
~ Weak in Practice of ... ... ... 29, 41, 47
Method of. Forensic ... ... ... ... y-g
» » Negative ... ... ... 2, 3, 134, 1411
>■ » ~ Except as to Special Abhorrence for Drunkard 135
Misinterprets—
Isaiah ... ... ... ... ... 110
>io Rant ... ... ... ... ... 64
St. Paul ... ... ... ... !04-6
Misquotes—
Committee of Fifty ... ... ... 22
Gladstone ... ... ... ... 10-ir
Plato ... ... ... ... 88-0
Scripture ... ... ... 108
Smith, Adam ... ... ... ... 74 (s)'
Moral and Legal Wrong Confused by • ... 39, 42
Natural Rights Asserted by ... ... ... 44
Opium, Prohibition of. Apparently Approved by 45, 104
Prohibition, Admitted to “Work Miracles” 50, 64
~ Declared Futile and Impossible”... 55
~ Not Favoured by Wealthy Mer-
chants, Judges, &c. ... ... 63 TI L. L. •. .. . ... .. A 1 r •f /' • 1
Prohibitionists Accused of “Cursing and Screaming” by ... ... ... ... 107
Self-Denial Only Once Mentioned by ... 130
Strong Language of Prohibitionists Rebuked by 64, 107
Stronger Lautruage of Hosea and Isaiah Not Rebuked by ... ... „. ... 107 no
Toil Recommended by ... ... ... 143’
Tranquillity ~ ~ ... ... ... 141
Virtue and Religion in Office Despised by ... 65
“Wine” Strangely Defined by ... ’ ... 117
Science and Bible . . ... ... ... to B (a)
(See also Doctors) ... ... ... 100-145
Scripture, Arguments from ... ... ... 100-145
* A ' ••• ••• „ Associates of Drunkenness in ... ... 5-5
~ “Swept and Garnished” ... ... 51-2
Self-Denial ... ... ... 77r>
Slavery and Christianity ... ... ... ... 120-4
„ vmijuami; ... ... ... ... 120-4 Smith, Adam ... ... ... ... ... 74 (cV
’ c , • • ••• ■■■ 74 151 ... Sydney ... ... ... ... ... 4 g
Spain ... ... ... .... 35
100
NOTE. —The Numbers refer to the Sections.
Spirits, Invention of, Revolutionized Problem " 4 ‘ 8
„ Ignored by Dr. Salmond „
State, Functions of ••• ••• 34
.. ’ True Test of Interference by ... 49 (a ]g
_ ‘ ' . ... 17 Id . 10, JiZStatistics - - - 24 fa). 86
Stephen, Sir J. F. • 4*?’ 49
Stubbs, ’ Bishop ... _ 3 ~ ’ r ... . . . / L-J
Sumptuary Laws " /3 4
Tillfett, Ben ... .
Total Absti-encei Christian Basis of ...
Made a Relevant Issue by Ur. Salmond ... *33
Turks 3 °’ 31
'Westcott, Bishop •" ' l°i
-“Wine of Life” ...
-AVright & Carman, Printers, 148 Featherslon Street, Wellington.
DR. SALMOND’S ATTACK ON THE TEMPERANCE REFORM ATTITUDE of the EVANGELICAL CHURCHES in NEW ZEALAND
A Reply to “Prohibition a Blunder”
by A Presbyterian Minister.
“I want to say that this year, 1911, is our year of emancipation if we are true to God and to our opportunity.” —Dying Message of Mr. T. E. Taylor to Rev. J. Dawson.
“Luther spoke of one doctrine as the doctrine by which the Church would stand or fall; and I have no hesitation in saying that the Temperance Question may be said—considering its various ramifications —to be the question on which our State and Church will stand or fall.” — Rev. A. Begg, D.D., of Edinburgh.
Published by
THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE, Willis St., Wellington
I.ankshear. Printer 26435
PREFACE.
The Rev. Dr. Stuart, of Knox Church, Dunedin, on the 24th April, 1886, wroU' to a friend (the letter lies before me), as follows; —“What do you think and say to yourself about Salmond’s pamphlet? I regret very much its appearance and the spirit which reigns and revels in its pages. I heard as a dead secret some fortnight ago that a thunderbolt was to explode among us which would occasion confusion, disaster, and dismay. What is the right way to meet it? I would have said nothing about it had he only expressed his own change of front on grave subjects. But” —Dr. Stuart here refers to a sensational attack on the doctrinal position of the Presbyterian Church by Dr. Salmond, in a pamphlet which brought him no fame bur a little notoriety, and some personal humiliation. The interest of the pamphlet lay in no originality of idea or expression on Dr. Salmond’s part, but simply in the fact that it was written by one who had been for ten years the official theological teacher of the Presbyterian Church of Otago, and who would naturally not lie expected to “explode thunderbolts'’ to bring “disaster” on the Church to which he was so much indebted. Twenty-two years have passed since Dr. Stuart wrote the letter quoted above, and the “constitutional temperament and proclivity” of Dr. Salmond have led him to write a second pamphlet, in which he attacks the attitude taken by every section of the Evangelical Church in New Zealand in relation to the liquor traffic. Dr. Stuart’s picturesque description of the first pamphlet of Dr. Salmond fitly describes the second; but Dr. Salmond will find in his sad experience that his “thunderbolt” is only a rusty blunderbuss that kicks over the man that fires it off.
As the result of urgent advice given me by prominent representatives of the Presbyterian Church, I wrote a series of four articles in reply to Dr. Salmond for the Saturday issues of the “Otago Daily Times” of May and June. I was urged to reprint the articles, but was rather unwilling to do so, as I was satisfied that Dr. Salmond’s second pamphlet would soon be as dead as the first. But his pamphlet has been artificially resuscitated by the brewers, who have been buying it up in large quantities, with the view of using it in the interest of their “trade.” In order to checkmate the “trade,” and help to educate the public mind, I now willingly consent to my articles appearing in pamphlet form, and to make my reply more effective I have made alterations and additions, and have omitted a lengthy exposure of historical errors so as not to make my reply too big for widespread distribution.
Dr. Salmoud is deservedly held in respect for his work as a Professor within the four corners of the Otago University ; but with regard to him as a writer of polemical pamphlets I agree with the opinion expressed long ago by Dr. Stuart, and in my criticisms I have taken to heart advice Russell Lowell gave:—
“Let us speak plain; there is more force in names
That most, men dream of: and a lie may keep
Its throne a whole age longer, if it skulk
Behind the shield of some fair seeming name.”
1.
DR. SALMOND AS A PIONEER OF PROHIBITION.
“We are ourselvee acquainted with villages where it (Prohibition) has been virtually enforced with the utmost benefit by the mere refusal of the landlord to any sort of beerhouse on his estate.” —C. Buxton, Brewer.
Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet on Prohibition has a special interest to me as a member and minister of the Presbyterian Church. The “.New Zealand Alliance” is no doubt assailed in the pamphlet, but the special object of attack is the Christian churches for their moral attitude to the drinking customs and drink traffic. The churches are told that by accepting the principle of Prohibition they are false to the example and teaching of Christ; that the Bible, when read in the lines of Prohibition, becomes a “sort of blasphemous parody”; and, convinced of the anti-Christian and anti-Bible attitude of the churches, the Professor flings this taunt at them : “0 ye Prohibitionists, swear by the Koran of Mahcmet! Your own Scriptures will profit you nothing.” Now, this taunt has little force and meaning when flung at an institution like the New Zealand Alliance, in which there are no religious tests, and in which people of the most varied religious beliefs may occupy a common platform. Sir Robert Stout for two years, and perhaps more, was president of the Alliance, and if Dr. Salmond had flung this taunt at him when he was president, Sir Robert, with an amused smile, might have said; “I accept your judgment, 0 most learned doctor of divinity, that the Koran is a better moral guide in our crusade than your Christian Bible!” But the taunt is meant for ministers, members, and adherents of the Christian Church who war against the drink evil with weapons that do not find favour.in the Professor’s eyes. It is a taunt that will give satisfaction to not a few people who say that the Bible is worthless as a moral guide. He puts a powerful bludgeon into the hands of an infidel when he implicitly teaches that our liquor traffic and drinking customs are in a sense ordinances of God sanctioned and supported by the Bible. How often has Christ thus been wounded in the house of His friends!
Dr. Salmond accuses temperance reformers of indulging in “frantic outcries’* for “drastic measures” to meet a “vanishing evil.” He tells us he watches holiday crowds, and walks the streets of Dunedin from end to end, and the evil fruits of our drinking customs hardly ever come within the horizon of his vision. Dr. Salmond is nursing a vain delusion. The evil is there, though he may not have eyes to see it. Wherever the liquor traffic and our social drinking customs are, there wc shall have the necessary evil fruits. As I let my mind run back on the past, what do I recall? When I was a child in the Sunday School in Scotland, the drink curse entered my minister’s manse, made a victim of ray minister’s wife, and laid hands on him also. There was no public scandal, but he was allowed to resign his charge, and he sailed to a British colony.: He had a short ministry here, and then the old evil appeared, and again he sailed to another part of the Empire. Our next minister in the Old Land came from a charge the former minister of which had been deposed for drunkenness. After his deposition, the man tried to recover himself. hut the drink environment, supported by the respectability and the religion of Scotland, was too much for him, and he fell, I fear,
9
never again to rise. Such was the way that drink ravaged the Church in the Old Land.* But what about this land!
This is my experience during some of the years of Dr. Salmond’s professorial life. Nearly opposite to the manse of the congregation to which 1 had been called, there was a hotel. The first week I was there the publican died, and 1 attended his funeral and conducted the service. At the grave I learned that his life had been shortened by drink. The “widow” of the deceased applied for the license at the next meeting of the Licensing Court, but she applied under a name different from that of the deceased publican, whose reputed wife she was. She was not his wife, but was the wife of another man still living 1 She got the license, and the house, for immorality and gambling, became a scandal to the neighbourhood. There were continual transfers of licenses, but the evil character of the house remained. One of the licensees got out of his bed in drink delirium at mid-day, ran backwards along an upstairs passage, fell over a stair, and was lifted up dead —his neck was broken. Contiguous to this hotel there was a small shoemaker’s shop, kept by a man who had been reclaimed from drink, and had been sober for some years. The old temptation through this hotel revived, and in delirium through drink he committed suicide. I was sent for, and the small kitchen in which the dead body lay was like a shambles. Such are the evils other people have to see and face, although Dr. Salmond does not see them. I became through such an experience a convert to NoLicense before we had a No-License law (1 had been an abstainer all through); and a vigorous crusade was started against the drink monopoly (the publicans were simply the “dummies” of the fat brewer), w'hich was a pirate preying on wholesome trades and industries and a monopoly whose most ready victims were those engaged in its service. For much more than ten years the fight went on, and all the well-worn objections so eloquently elaborated by Dr. Salmond were thrown at us. The fight ended at last in victory, and more than seven devils have been cast out of the community as the result. With such an experience it would be as easy for me to believe in Jupiter and Thor as to believe that our liquor monopoly was a tree planted by our Heavenly Father; and this appalling assumption runs through all Dr. Salmond’s railing accusation against the abolition attitude of the evangelical churches.
The word “prohibition” is a word that awakens to-day in Dr, Salmond’s breast feelings of horror and alarm. And yet he is a Prohibitionist to a very large extent. He believes not in free trade in drink, but in regulation or license, and this involves prohibition. The guns of Dr. Salmond’s logical artillery are directed as much against his own position as against that of those he formally attacks. Dr. Salmond, who thus to-day is a partial Prohibitionist, was away back in 1886. when professor of theology, an entire Prohibitionist, in one region at least. In a sense and in a particular region Dr. Salmond was one of the Prohibition pioneers before we had any No-License laws, and before Sir William Fox (outstandingly the noblest of the Christian statesmen of
Dr. Salmond knows something of this experience. The following is the substance of a letter of date 22/5/11, sent to me through the Kditor of the “Otago Daily Times” “Dear sir,—l am a reader and admirer of your articles in reply to Professor Salmond. About 23 years ago I was boarding at a hotel in Dunedin. The “boots” and general knockabout was a degree man of one of the Home Universities and at one time was a Presbyterian minister. He said his Church was pn one side of the river at home, and Salmond’s on the other Drink had brought him down from the pulpit to the bootblack. I lost the run of this man for some time, but meeting Professor Salmond one dav I asked him about the man. “Oh, yes,” he said, “he died in the poor-house at Caversham a short while back.”
4
212
New Zealand) founded the New Zealand Alliance 1 In 1886, and for years before. Dr. Salmond was a leading and active member of the Otago Presbyterian Synod. During this period the Synod’s relation to the liquor traffic was faced in a practical way. In 1885, when Dr. Salmond was very largely a leader in the Synod, the Temperance Committee reported as follows: —
“Your committee regards it as unbecoming on the part of the Synod to denounce year after year the drinking customs of society and urge those over whom it has ecclesiastical jurisdiction to do their utmost to lessen the number of licensed houses, and yet at the same time, in appearance, to be offering facilities for the extension of the drink system by allowing church property to be used as sites for hotels. There are at present four hotels on church land in Dunedin.”
How did this Synod (53 out of 55 ministerial members were total abstainers) deal with the matter? It passed the following drastic resolution, with no word of dissent from Dr. Salmond :
“Further, the Synod expresses its emphatic disapproval of allowing church property to be used for the existence of licensed houses for the sal© of drink, strongly recommends the church board of property to endeavour to give effect to its wishes in this matter, and appoints the Temperance Committee to confer with the board on this subject.”
The following year Dr. Salmond w’as raised to the Moderator’s chair, and the Temperance Committee reported to him and to the Synod as follows:
“As instructed by last meeting of Synod, your committee waited on the church board of property. The board received your committee very courteously, and expressed itself desirous of doing its utmost to carry into effect the views and wishes of the Synod.”
Dr. Salmond put, as Moderator, this report to the House for its adopttion, and it was passed with unanimity, and Dr. Salmond is as much responsible for the Prohibition policy as any other member of the Synod. Sometimes Moderators are lifeless personages as regards watching and guiding the policy of the House. Dr. Salmond was not a personage of this kind, and his watch ulness and mental alertness as a Moderator called forth the following somewhat unfair criticism from the pen of the writer of “Passing Notes” :
“It is related by the moral and veracious iEsop that w T hen the frogs prayed for a king Jupiter flung a log which floated about in their marsh with much dignity, and entire incapacity to do the smallest harm. The frogs complaining, however, of the inactivity of King Log, Jupiter in anger sent them a stork —which gobbled them up. I have seen Synods presided over by stolid King Log, but never one so scourged as this has been by the severities of King Stork. Nobody was safe from him, not even the oldest and most venerated frog in the marsh. Take the following typical incident; —Mr. Downie Stewart was venturing to make some remarks in protest against the treatment meted out to the Rev. Dr. Stuart, remarks which ought to have elicited the ready sympathy of the entire Synod, when the Moderator, who had several times interrupted. “rose from the chair” :
“Mr. Stewart/: I do not know whether the Moderator is going to speak?
“The Moderator : I am not going to speak ; I am on the watch tower however. (Laughter.)
“Mr. Stewart continued his speech for a time with the Moderator on the “watch tower,” till the following occurred :
“Mr. Stewart: I may say, Mr. Moderator, your standing up there is very irritating to me, as I do not know when you are going to stop me
■‘The Moderator: 1 will not stop you unless you are out of order, I will sit down.
• Truly a most vigilant, active, and peremptory King Stork, of whose beak the vicious digs will long be remembered 1 Several reputations have been hashed during this Synod, the Moderator’s worst of all.”
It was thus when Dr. Salmond was on the “watch tower” as Moderator of the Otago Presbyterian Synod that the policy of Prohibition as regards the sale of intoxicating liquors as beverages was inaugurated. It is this policy that moves Dr. Salmond to indignation to-day. There are amazing things in the pamphlet, but the most amazing thing to me in the light of the past and in the light of the present is that the pamphlet was ever written at all. If the owners or controllers of land have power in this democratic community absolutely to prohibit the sale of drink, it is a strange thing that the community as a whole should have less power of control over this so-called “trade.” But Dr. Salmond’s interest in this Prohibition area of church lands did not end with this Synod meeting. In 1886 he retired from the Chair of Theology, and very willingly allowed himself to be appointed by the Presbyterian Synod to his present chair, the salary for which was to be found from rents from lands in a Prohibition area created by himself and Synod; for a quarter of a century he has enjoyed a very generous living from those rents (not one penny of which comes to-day from the liquor traffic) without one word of protest! Dr. Salmond either does not believe his anti-prohibition creed or he believes in Prohibition by the despotic fiat of the 'andowner, and thus feels at liberty to belabour the evangelical churches which favour Prohibition by the free vote of a free people.
11.
THE BIBLE AMAZINGLY MISREPRESENTED.
“The plea of the example of Christ in justification of the use of ordinary intoxicants is absurd and profane.”—-Professor A. A. Hodge, D.D.
Dr. Emil Reich describes, in one of his books an erroneous form of thought which he had been led to criticise as a “perversion of history and a desecration of religion.” This seems to me, after a very careful perusal of Dr. Salmond’s anti-Prohibition pamphlet, as by no means an unfair description of it. It will be my business in this chapter to justify this condemnatory opinion. But before 1 do so, I wish to call attention to a preliminary matter. Dr. Salmond begins his pamphlet with the following surprising announcement: “In the following discussion, it will be convenient to use the word ‘wine’ as the generic term for all alcoholic beverages. , . , This usage ... is in harmony with the use and wont of Scripture and of all languages.” This reads almost like a fallacious and sophistical statement that Dr. Salmond, as a teacher of logic, had given to his class to criticise. He might as well say that the “bow and arrow” was a generic term for all instruments of war in our time; and that to use such a manner of speech was in harmony with the use and wont of Scripture and of all languages. The Bible word “wine” is not a synonym for our “whisky,” the Bible expression “strong drink” does not stand for what we mean by rum or gin. There is as much difference in killing power between Bible “wine” and our whisky, rum, and gin, as there is between the killing power of the bow and the repeating rifle. The kitten and the tiger may
6
both belong to the cat tribe, but there is a mighty difference between the kitten and the man-eating tiger.*
When a student I was urged to give most earnest heed to teachers like Stanley Jevons in their lessons on the ambiguity of terms and the growth of language. Dr. Salmond, in the forefront of his discussion, digs a pit for himself and his readers by ignoring such an elementary lesson. It is absurd to say that to use the word “wine" thus is in harmony with the use and wont of our language. Wine is not, and perhaps never was the common intoxicating liquor of the English-speaking race. The drink bill of New Zealand shows that wine is not the popular beverage. Robert Burns praises the common drink when he sings:
“O Whisky! soul o’ plays and pranks!
Accept a Bardie's gratefu’ thanks!
When wanting thee, what tuneless cranks
Are my poor verses.”
But the inspiration that comes from alcohol soon silences the singer in death.
And now I come to the immediate purpose of this chapter; and this leads mo to affirm that
DR. SALMOND’S CONTENTION THAT OUR LIQUOR MONOPOLY AND DRINKING CUSTOMS HAVE THE SANCTION AND BENEDICTION OF THE BIBLE IS A DESECRATION OF RELIGION.
The temperance battle waged by the churches is a war (1) agaiust the use of alcoholic liquors as beverages, (2) against continuing the granting of licenses to traffic in intoxicating liquors as beverages. Dr. Salmond (contends that this crusade is a war against an order of things that has the sanction and benediction of the Bible!
Dr. Salmond is the last of a succession of special pleaders that have used the Bible to bolster up trades and institutions that, like our licensed drink monopoly, have cursed the human race. Dr. Samuel Johnson (who, by the way, became a total abstainer for his own sake and that of others) in an age when many people believed in the slave traffic declaimed against it, and demanded its prohibition, and for doing so his sapient biographer, James Boswell, censures him in the following very pious and very eloquent way: —“The wild and dangerous attempt which has for some time been persisted in to obtain an act of our Legislature to abolish so very important and necessary a branch of commercial interest . . . excites my wonder and indignation. ... To abolish a status which in all ages God has sanctioned would ... be a robbery to an innumerable class of our fellow subjects. ... To abolish that trade would be to . . . ‘ shat the gates of mercy on mankind.’ ” Such is James Boswell's deliverance in 1777. Slavery is divinely and wisely arranged, and its abolition would mean shutting the gates of mercy on mankind! (See Everyman’s Library Edition, vol. ii., page 148). I come down 80 years and I find a real live doctor of
*Dr. Salmond’s juggling with terms has evoked the following piece of pungent satire which has been used with effect in pulpit and platform: “A number of ardent sportsmen determine to introduce lions and tigers into the Dominion, in order to furnish excitement, and food for their valour. They engage a professor to descant upon the excellencies of the carnivora and reassure timid people who dread their introduction. ‘Ladies and gentlemen,’ says the professor, ‘in dealing with our subject this evening, inasmuch as lions and tigers are all of the cat tribe, in reality nothing more than great kittens, in speaking of them this evening it will be more convenient for me to classify and refer to them as ‘kittens.’ ”
7
divinity writing a book to show that American slavery has the sanction and benediction of the Bible! I have the book before me. It bears the title “Slavery Ordained by God,” by Hev. bred. A. Boss, D.D. (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1857;. On page 36 the author declares slavery to be in “absolute harmony with the Word of God,” and he adds that some anti-slavery men have left the “light of the Bible and wandered into the darkness until they have reached the blackness of the darkness of infidelity.” The statements of Boswell and Dr, Ross need no refutation to-day. They carry their own refutation, but they make a black ugly stain on the pages of the history of Christianity. 1 T \ C 1 - 1........ I .. 414 r- +lioro woo nropf irollv n n rlifforniioo l.«
1. Dr. Saimond affirms that there was practically no difference between Bible times and our times as regards the prevalance of drunkenness. In making such an affirmation he ignores a whole series of very important historic facts, la) He ignores the fact that the Bible times and our times were poles apart as regards the strength of the alcoholic liquors then and now. The liquors in Bible times were alcoholic as the result of the fermentation of grape and other fruit juice. But the decidedly strong drinks of our time were unknown then. The writer of the aiticle “Wine” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, recognises the fact of unformented wine in ancient times; but the wine generally in use was fermented, and its alcoholic strength varied —some of it would be so weak as to be practically unintoxicating, and Philothe Jew in his treatise on “Drunkenness,” states that it was usual to dilute the wine with water. There was not, thus, in Bible times the deadly power in liquor to produce drunkenness such as we have in our distilled liquors. There is a very marked difference in “wine” with fiom 5 to 18 per cent., and distilled spirits, such as gin. rum, whisky, and brandy, with from 30 to 65 per cent, of alcohol. Dr. Saimond calmly ignores this pregnant fact. He also ignores the awful change for the worse that came over England in 1724, when gin-drinking began, and, as Lecky says, “the fatal passion for drink was at once and inevccably planted in the nation,” A clear illustration of the difference in the prevalence of drunkenness with liquors such as Bible wines and drunkenness as the result of the use of our whisky, rum, and gin may be given from Africa to-day. I quote as follows from the report of the Missionary Conference held in London in 1888. On page 480, vol. 1, I road: —“the heathen fin Africa) have their pombe and palm wine, and get mildly drunk on these without our help ; but the moment they come in contact with ‘Christian civilisation’ (!) the fierce and fatal fire-water supplied to them, they fall before the enticing temptation, drink with mad delight, get rapidly demoralised, and die.” On page 482, Thompson, the traveller, is quoted as follows: —“In wandering through some native villages on the Kru Coast one feels as if in a kind of hades, peopled by brutalised human beings, whose punishment is to be possessed by a never-ending thirst for drink. On all sides you are followed by eager cries for gin, gin—always gin. Under their eager appearance one seems to hear the bitter reproach, ‘You see what you Christians have made us.’ . . . For me, as things stand in many places, I am inclined to translate the cry of opening up Africa to civilisation as really being the opening of it up to European vices, old clothes, gin, rum. gunpowder, and guns.” (b) Dr. Saimond ignores, and denies, the fact that in Bible times, especially New Testament times, drunkenness was a sporadic evil, and not the epidemic of vice that It Is, and has been in our times. The silence of the four Gospels throws a flood of light on the social conditions of Palestine in our lord’s day. We have no record of His even once coming in contact with a drunkard! Professor Beecher, who writes the article “Drunkenness” in Hasting's “Dictionary of the Bible” —a writer who, for intellectual honesty in discussing various sides of the temperance question, is without a rival —- has come to very clear and decided views on the point in hand, fie writes: —“Anyone who will carefully study all the passages in the Bible which speak of this matter will note that, in a large majority of them, drunkenness is explicitly spoken of as the vice of the wealthy. Perhaps
8
216
there is not an instance in which habitual drunkenness is attributed to any who are not wealthy.” He says it would take two weeks’ wages of a labourer in old times to buy wine to get drunk; but now an hour’s wages will buy liquor to intoxicate; and he concludes that drunkenness with us is “immeasurably” greater than in Bible times, and he significantly adds: “We ought to deal with the problem accordingly.” (Vol. 1, page 630.)
2. Dr. Salmond, in the face of an extensive series of Bible facte, shewing that total abstinence was always spoken of with approval in Holy Scripture, and not unfrequently distinctly commanded, affirms that it was a “new' virtue,” “invented” about the “middle of last century” ! It will not be difficult to nail this misstatement to the counter. The wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness go back considerably more than 3000 years, and we find them practising total abstinence. Here is what the historian says;—“l have led you 40 years in the wilderness. . . . Ve have not drunk wine or strong drink; that ye may know that lam the Lord your God.” (Deut. xxix. 5, 7). Dr. Salmond quotes Isaiah’s statements about the drinking habits of the teachers of divinity in his time, and with a fatuous simplicity he adds; “Yet not a word falls from the prophet’s lips in favour of total abstinence.” Of course not; because their drunkenness was specially and peculiarly sinful. They were divinely commanded to be total abstainers, and they had broken that command. Isaiah and Isaiah’s hearers knew well the law of God with regard to those official religionists. Here is the law: “Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die; it shall be a statute for ever throughout all generations,” (Leviticus x, 9; see also Ezekiel xliv., 21). Daniel, John the Baptist, and the Nazarites were total abstainers, enjoying the special favour of God, and in no way illustrating the “seven devils” theory of Dr. Salmond. The Bechabites were total abstainers, and Jonadab, the head of the clan, “prohibited” (I quote the late Rev. William Gillies) “his clan from having anything to do with the manufacture, sale, or use of wine” ; and we further read that a Divine of the period tried to seduce them, just as Dr. Salmond is doing to-day, from their total abstinence and prohibition principles (see Jeremiah, chapter xxxv.). In apostolic times, we know that Timothy was a total abstainer, for Paul (himself probably a total abstainer) exhorted him to recognise the medicinal value of wine. Paul describes his own attitude with regard to the drunkenness of his time. “Let us who are of the day be sober”—literally, abstainers from wine (see Nepho in Liddle and Scott) (1 Thessalonians iv., B)._ Dr. Salmond’s statement then, about the novelty of total abstinence is one of his crowning follies.
3. Dr. Salmond’s handling of the miracle at Cana is a remarkable and painful desecration of religion. Ho writes: “The narrative of Christ’s ministry starts with the strange story of the miraculous creation of 126 gallons of wine of excellent quality.” The word “wine” with Dr. Salmond always and everywhere means “intoxicating liquors.” He thus affirms that the first action of Jesus Christ in his public ministry was to use His Divine power to pour a flood of intoxicating liquors that would fill about 1500 of our pint bottles upon a small marriage company that had already used a considerable quantity of wine. The story, as thus told dpy Dr. Salmon/, reads like part of the story of Bacchus rather than that of Christ/ Dr. Salmond’s story, however, is about as true to fact as was the student’s definition of a lobster, who said it was a “red fish that walked backwards.” His examiner said that this was good but for three things—“ First, it wasn’t a fish ; second, it wasn’t red; and third, it didn’t walk backwards.” In the first place, Christ’s ministry “starts” with no such story. The Gospels give a mere outline of the wonderful life, but we know that great events took place in Christ’s ministry before He reached Cana of Galilee. Christ changed men before He changed water. Here, then, is a reck-
less error in Dr. Salmond’s chronology. And now for Dr. Salmond’s exegesis. He says that Christ miraculously created “126 gallons.” John, who writes the story, and who was present at the marriage, says nothing about the quantity, but Dean Alford, who wrote 50 years ago, as the result of a wrong exegesis, says so, and takes the opportunity in his foolish note to get in a knock at temperance reformation. We are not told that one drop of the water in the water pots was changed into wine; we are told that the w r ater that was drawn from the fountain, or well, after the water pots were filled was changed as it was borne to the Master of the Feast. How much was changed we know not, and Dr. Salmond cannot furnish us with a particle of trustworthy information. The “126 gallons” had no existence save in the imagination of men like Dean Alford and those who, like Dr. Salmond, follow in his wrong exposition and interpretation. What the Apostle really tells us in his narrative is clearly pointed out by Bishop Westcott, one of the greatest of modern scholars in the region of New Testament exposition and interpretation, whose commentary is easily the first to-day among the studies of John’s Gospel. Westcott says in his comment on John ii. 8: — “According to the current interpretation the water in the vessels of purification was changed into wine, and the servants are bidden to draw from these. There is nothing in the text which definitely points to such an interpretation; and the original word is applied most naturally to drawing from the well (iv. 7, 15), and not from a vessel like the waterpot. It seems most unlikely that water taken from vessels of purification could have been employed for the purpose of the miracle. On the other hand, the significance of the miracle comes out with infinitely greater force if the change is wrought through the destination of the element. That which remained water when kept for ceremonial use became wine when borne in faith to minister to the needs, even to the superfluous requirements, of life.”
Dr. Salmond says that the wine was of “excellent quality” He is satisfied that it was intoxicating wine, but he docs not venture to give us its alcoholic strength. At one time awful compounds of logwood and brandy would invade even the communion table in Scotland; but we may rest assured that the wine that Christ gave to this marriage party was excellent in the sense that it would injure none of them. He who came into the world not to destroy men’s lives but to save them would never come under the condemnation of His own word, which says (Hab. ii. 15) : “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink . . . and makest him drunken.” Dr. Salraond’s whole treatment of this story shocks one’s spiritual instincts and places Christ in his moral practice much below the standard of the moral teaching of Plato, who, according to Dr. Salmond, preached total abstinence till 40 years of age was reached. To such desperate straits are men reduced who seek to find in the Bible its benediction for our drinking customs and drink traffic. A pagan moralist refuses alcoholic beverages to people till they reach 40 years. Christ gives to a young married couple 126 gallons of alcoholic beverages! The very suggestion that He did so is a desecration of religion.
I have thus sheeted home to Dr. Salmond a large number of shameful misrepresentations in the sacrecj; sphere of our Holy Religion. It is an amazing and distressing sight tA see Dr. Salmond' fathering on the Bible and the God of the Bible the. drink monopoly and the drinking customs of our age. For centuries alcohol has been the curse and scourge of our civilisation; God’s voice in science has made known to us the right place for alcohol, and that place is not as a food, not as a luxury, but as a medicine, like opium and other drugs. The exegetical torturing and twisting of the Bible to find sanction for our present-day use of alcohol as a beverage and to block the progress of the temperance reformation is on all fours with the'efforts of those in the past who attempted to make the Bible support slavery and resist abolition : attempted to make the Bible settle the question in favour of the ptolemaic
217
cosmogony and resist the progress of astronomical science; attempted to make the Bible declare that the world was made in 144 hours, and that the voice of geological science had no right to be heard.
111.
DOES "NO-LICENSE" RUN COUNTER TO A COMMAND OF CHRIST?
“Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it.” —Carlyle.
There are few statements in Ur. Salmond’s pamphlet that shock one's religious feelings more than his references to the relation of Christian Temperance reformers to the last command of their Master. There is no doubt a time ana place for the use of sarcasm and satire in controversy, but a man is in peril when he enters the holy of holies with biicii weapons in his hands. Surely Ur. Salmond’s "relentless hostility” to No-License led him too far when he wrote on pages 13 and 14; "Christ ojdamed that His disciples should eat bread and drink wine . . . an injunction which it is proposed henceforth to make it impossible to obey without the permission of a special Act of Parliament, the churches applauding.” But his bad taste does not stop at this, for on page 15 he puts into the lips ot Temperance reformers the following extraordinary parody of the most sacred saying in Holy Scripture: "Eat of this bread and drink of this narcotic poison.” Surely Dr. Salmond was in despair for an argument when Le resorted to statements of this kind with the view of discrediting local and Dominion No-License. Does the No-License reform run counter to the command of Christ, and would we require a special Act of Parliament framed to enable Christians to carry out their Master’s wishes? Certainly not. But it is well to notice that beneath and behind these gibes and sneers of Dr. Salmond there is the assumption that intoxicating liquor is necessary to the observance of the supper. Is such an assumption justified either by Scripture or by the Christian consciousness ? Suppose we assume that our Saviour used fermented wine in instituting the Supper, are we to be such slaves to the letter as to say that this particular liquid is necessary to a valid Sacrament? Our Saviour used bread in the form of unleavened cakes in instituting the Supper ; are we to be such slaves to the letter as to say that the use of leavened wheaten bread in our day would be an act of disobedience to Christ ? One cup was used at the first celebration of the Supper ; are w T e to be such slaves to the letter as to say that the use of ten cups or ten hundred cups would be wrong to-day? We are called as Christians not to bondage but to liberty in such matters as these. If our Saviour had appeared in the Arctic regions as man’s Redeemer, he would have used the common articles of diet as memorials of His death, and these might have been dried fish and water. If our Saviour had appeared in our midst in our time He would have used our common articles of diet, and these might have been, not unleavened cakes and the “fruit of the vine,” but leavened bread and tea. The “fruit of the vine” is the phrase used by Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the story of the institution of the Supper to describe the contents of the cup, and surely the pure “blood of the grape” in the form of "unfermented wine” is within the terms of the institution. Forty years ago the then Archbishop of York said; “We who use port wine in the observance of the Lord’s Supper may be right; they who use the unfermented juice of the grape cannot be wrong.” Dr. Dunlop Moore, of America, who wrote the article "Wine” for the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of the Bible, contends (and he has on his side the scholarship
218
of the day) that fermented wine was used at the Passover Feast, but he adds in an article on “Sacramental Wine” in the “Presbyterian Review,” that “we are to remember that water to the proportion of three-fourth parts of water to one-fourth of wine could be mingled in the Passover cup.” The writer of the article “Wine” in the third volume of Smith’s ‘'Dictionary of the Bible,” says: “The wine was mixed with warm water on these occasions. . . . Hence in the early Christian Church it was usual to mix wine with water. This, then, is all the help that scholarship can give Dr. Salmona in his slavery to the letter. Did he when minister of a congregation use a fiery “port wine” with hardly a vestige of the “fruit of the vine” in ilj? Does Dr. Salmond favour to-day this Passover wine of ancient times, a weak fermented wine practically unintoxicating, and this weak wine largely dduted with water, or does he favour the use of “port wine” —a concoction deluged with distilled alcohol? The probable answer to both questions would be, not the ancient weak Passover wine, but our fiery highly intoxicating, port wine. And what resemblance has such a fiery fluid to the Passover wine of ancient times? At a time when port wine was generally used in the Presbyterian Church fortv years ago, Mr. Lytton, of the English Legation in Portugal, submitted to the British Government a report on wine, in which he said: “All port wine hitherto exported for the English market is largely mixed with brandy, and is composed quite as much of elderberries *as grapes.” What liquid is nearer the terms of the institution, the “fruit of the vine,” this powerful intoxicant, or the unfermented juice of the grape now so generally used? There are sad stories that could be told about the evil results of the substitution of distilled alcohol for the “fruit of the vine” in the observance of the Sacrament of the Supper. Not a few converted drunkards in the past have been led to become onoe more victims to drink through the fiery “wine” of the Sacrament. Our late King Edward VII., in his last illness, sent a special messenger for a copy of Vine Hall s “Sinner’s Friend”—a Gospel booklet that has gone round the world, and led many to God. Vine Hall was a converted drunkard, and his son, the well-known Newman Hall, tells that his father never once, of the thirty years of eldership in his church, tasted the wine that was then used. He was allowed to pass the cup with its fiery fluid and partake only of the bread ; but in some cases in those days when Church and State very largely held the views that Dr Salmond holds to-day, a man that acted as Vine Hall did would be deposed from his eldership and cast out of the Church. I have before me a verbatim report of a meeting held on the 13th April, 1875. in the Music Hall, Edinburgh, at which ex-Bailie Lewis gave an address, in the cmirse of which he said that not long before he had shown the sights of Edinburgh to Protab Chunder Mozoombar, a distinguished Hindoo philosopher and social reformer, and a leader in the Bramo Somaj. The last sight may be told in the words of the report .—“I said to him. ‘There is just one sight more I wish to show you before you leave the citv,’ and I took him into the shop of one of our most-honoured and respected citizens 1 said to him: ‘Do you see that man?’ He replied, ‘Yes! What about him ?’ I said to him, ‘I have known that man for a quarter ° f j rTL It - u P ’ an< 15 a man i n the city for whose good citizenship and Christianity I could vouch for it is Thomas Temple. (Loud applause ) That man,’ I said, ‘was divested of the eldership, cut off from Church Communion, because he refused to violate his convictions by partaking of intoxicating liquors in connection with a religions ordinance. The Hindoo was literally confounded. He said, ‘I have seen manv a strange sight, hut that is the most memorable one. I shall not be likely easily to forget it.’ (Applause.)” (Report of meeting, page "*•' At this meeting, at which the writer was present, nearlv 2000 people sampled the “fruit of the vine” in the form of “unfermented wine, and unanimously declared in favour of its use in the Sacrament: and now this pure and simple “fruit of the vine” has generally dislodged the adulterated concoction known as "port wine.” When the
219
Rev. John McNeill was minister of Regent’s Square Church, in London, he preached a sermon in Spurgeon’s Tabernacle, in the course of which he read a letter that had been addressed to another minister. The letter was a plea for the use of non-alcoholic wine at the Lord’s Table. The writer’s father committed suicide through drink when she was six years old. She became, when grown up, a Christian and a pledged abstainer. One sister became a drunkard, abandoned husband and children, and died one of the worst victims of the Whitechapel tragedies. Her brother became a drunkard, and was the subject of her daily prayer. In the church w'here she worshipped, wine, with a strong alcoholic odour, was used, and at the Communion she held her breath and passed the cup in fear. And then she adds* “I bear the scars of drink in its threefold curse of suicide, murder, and theft. There may be other brothers and sisters like mine. Oh! make the Church at least safe for them, lest they find a way to hell even from the table of the Lord” (“Christian World” report,"April 30, 1889). In response to such cries, and for other reasons also, the simple “fruit of the vine” is very generally used in evangelical churches at the Communion; and this kind of wine needs no sanction of an Act of Parliament for its manufacture and sale. For Dr. Salmond, however, and those who think with him. Section 21 of the 1910 “Licensing Act” meets their case, for there prevision is made for the sale of “intoxicating liquors” for “Sacramental” purposes.
IV
"ACADEMIC” ACCURACY SADLY LACKING.
“Man, did ye write a’ that?”—Dr. Stuart
A "ood many years ago a visiting minister occupied the pulpit of the okT Knox Church, Dunedin, and Dr. Stuart found a seat in the pew. The sermon preached was not of a high order, was confused and inaccurate, and was read from a manuscript. At the close of the service Dr Stuart, in a surprised tone of voice, said to the preacher, who had his MS. in his hand: “Man, did ye write a’ that?” In Dr. Stuart’s eyes there was a measure of excuse for confused statement m a spoken address, but it was a surprising thing that a man should reduce his confused thinking to writing beforehand. Ihis story comes to my mind as I glance once more over Dr. Salmond s pamphlet, which blazes with blunders in nearly every page; and one can imagine that sturdy old total abstainer, Dr. Stuart, saying to Dr. Salmond regarding such blunders, “Man, did ye write a’ that?” In his preface. Dr Salmond fears that some of his readers “will consider” his “method of discussion too academic.” If by “academic” Dr. Salmond means “scholarly—marked by careful accuracy of statement” —then his fears were groundless. I know hardly anything in the way of a plea for our liquor monopoly and drinking customs so full of inaccuracies and sophisticated statements. No doubt the sentences are well rounded and the paragraphs well built, but when we seek for truths among Dr. Salmond’s periods how disappointed we are! In proof of this charge I select here four strange statements out of many similar for a little critical analysis: (1) The first so-called “academic” statement of Dr. Salmond I touch with reluctance. But as Dr. Salmond wrote it in cold blood, and approved of it in correcting his proof sheets, a sense of duty forces me to note it. Here is the unsavoury sentence: “If the open bar entices a few victims, the crowds of ‘cutty queans’ who walk the streets at nightfall or lurk in secret places, entice many more.” Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet is circulated all over the Dominion, and Dunedin is thus pilloried before our whole people for its open and shameless immorality. “Crowds of strumpets, prostitutes, walk the streets at nightfall or lurk
220
in secret places,” is the sickening statement of Dr. Salmond. I have submitted this statement to the Dunedin Inspector of Police, and he says it is untrue, and is surprised that anybody should make it. I have seen Dunedin streets at all hours, and cordially agree with the Inspector of Police. This statement, then, I hold to be untrue. But it is worse than untrue, for it is mean. It makes moral badness a thing of sex, and surely a professor of moral science in a university should be the last mqn in the world to do this.
(2) Another “academic” statement is as follows, as given on page 49 ■ “The spirit of falsehood and hypocrisy, the spirit of defiant contempt of law, the spirit of perjury, the spirit of meanness and cowardice the spirit of mutual revilings, the sp.r.t of subterfuge and contraband trading, the spirit of universal insincerity and moral humbug Dr. Salmond arrays these devils before us and tells us that they ravage the community if the people vote universal No-License and abolish the liquor traffic. These evil spirits, he says, will appear when we banish the public house. I have no doubt they will, for they are entrenched in the liquor traffic to-day and will not die with the traffic. I can bear witness to the existence of these evil spirits who have often garrisoned the liquor traffic, for 1 have seen. I have heard a sergeant of police sav on oath in a licensing court that his character was not safe in entering a particular public house, because the liars there \*ould sijear awav his good name if he entered the house. I have known on credible evidence of mock trials in which witnesses were drilled in lying in order to shield a publican who would figure in court next day in a lambing down” case. I have known of an inquest on a drink suicide hurried on in the absence of the magistrate, in defiance of law, by the liquor traffic in order to shield the publican who sold the liquor to the drink victim, and they succeeded, and a local brewer presided at the inquest, have been in a Licensing Court and have seen a Licensing Bench grant a new license in a district free from the liquor curse, against the wishes of nearly everybody in the district expressed in petition duly filed and supported by an able Christian lawyer. The presiding magistrate was against the granting, and he told me that the business was a black business, and that his Bench must have been bribed. I have known of the editor of a newspaper terrorised by a ring of publicans, who, through their lawyer, threatened him with libel if he made statements reflecting on their mode of conducting their business. Yes, Dr. Salmond’s devils are not mere creatures of the imagination. They are with us. and very, very specially and peculiarly entrenched in the liquor traffic .which Dr. Salmond is seeking to perpetuate in our midst. Truly, there will be trouble with those devils when No-License is carried. Pain is the price often paid for freedom. The devil “rent him sore” and came out of him.
(3) Another “academic” statement is to be found on page 39, and is as follows: —“The cause of drunkenness in the United Kingdom is not the existence of drink so much as the cheerless gloom of an empty existence in a miserable climate; and therefore under the conditions of life in New Zealand, under our bright blue skies, drunkenness can never be so bad.” This is the one definite statement in a seven-page attempt to show that drink does not cause drunkenness and to minimise the estimates of the evils arising from the drink traffic. then, to Dr. Salmond is very much a matter of climate. The climate has been responsible for a lot of things, hut I am not aware that it was ever charged with causing drunkenness. Does a wet season mean a rush to whisky in Otago? Do the Dunedin publicans pray for sunless skies so that people may swallow their swill in wholesale quantities? Montesquieu, the French essayist, had a theory that a hot climate made cowards and a cold climate made heroes ; but his theory has been found to he untrue in fact. I fear Dr. Salmond’s theory must share the same fate. I suppose the ablest book given to the world for a long time in the way of an impartial view of the temperance problem is Rowntree
221
and SherwelTs book, and there we read: “There is abundant evidence to show that among modern nations the influence of climate upon drink consumption is relatively small. ... At the beginning of the present century Norway was one of the most drunken countries in Europe. At the present time it is the most sober country in Europe As a matter of fact, when we inquire in what European country the consumption of alcohol per head of the population is greatest, we find that the highest figures are reached not in any fog-bound northern nation, but in ‘Sunny France.’ ” (“The Temperance Problem,” by Rowntree and Sherwell, pages 27-28.) The figures given prove this statement. The consumption of absolute alcohol per head of population was in France 3.56 English gallons; in the United Kingdom 2.08; in Norway .52 Thus in Sunny France alcohol drinking is seven times more than in Sunless Norway. Dr. Salmond’s notion, that in one aspect the soul of improvement is the improvement of the climate, finds in facts very scant confirmation. The “cheerless gloom” spoken of by Dr. Salmond is the gloom not so much of the climate as the gloom of a house scourged with poverty and squalor arising from drunkenness.
(4) Another “academic” statement deals with the testimony of modern scientists with regard to alcohol and its uses, and is as follows : —“The only conclusion I can reach is that they do not yet know much about it, and that the mode of its action, as of various substances, remains undiscovered. Apparently we have to proceed on our way as best we can without the light of science; and we can do so very well. Doth not Nature teach us? . the experience of countless millions through many generations affords a surer guide than any mushroom theories propounded under big names.” Now, this is a remarkable “academic,” scholarly deliverance from an Otago University professor. No light has come to us from “science,” and so we will fall back on “Nature” and the “countless experience of millions through many generations!” This is Dr. Salmond’s way of funking a scientific statement on the question—his way of “running into a hole and hiding himself." Since Professor James Miller, of Edinburgh, one of the Queen’s physicians, wrote his “Alcohol: Its Place and Power,” more than half a century ago, an immense number of scientists have followed in his footsteps in scientific investigation, and science speaks to-day in clear, condemnatory tones of Dr. Salmond’s attitude as an apologist for our drinking customs. Dr. Salmond is simply leading his leaders astray by slurring over this whole question. Rhetorical statements about “Nature” may pass without criticism when they come from a man in distress for words on a platform, but in cold print in Dr. Salmond’s pamphlet they mean nothing, and only mislead, and so do inane appeals to the “experience of countless millions of many generations.” Thirtyfive years ago a class of divinity students in Edinburgh had the honour of being taught by one of the humblest and yet one of the greatest of the sons of Scotland —Professor John Cairns. This man, like Guthrie and Begg and Rainy, had become a total abstainer, and, having read Dr. Richardson’s (now famous) Cantor lectures on alcohol, he addressed his students thus on August 26, 1875: —“Science is laying the foundation already for an improved practice and new faith in regard to the use of alcoholic liquors. Having read Dr. Richardson’s lectures, although I am not able to judge of the scientific merits of the question, I believe, and I know medical men think, that it will not be easy to refute the arguments by which Dr. Richardson has shown —and he is not the first who has shown—that strong drink, wine included, supplies no nourishing element nor healing element; that neither food nor warmth are actually supplied by strong drink, or by the alcoholic element that is in strong drink, and that accordingly to use alcoholic drinks under the idea that they are food or producers of heat is just so much money thrown away, and worse than thrown array on these articles. . . I believe that by the progress of medical science we shall havq our common scientific opinions reversed on this question, and that we shall be able to advocate the temperance cause on the principle of Christian
222
expediency, but also to take higher ground, although I have never for myself taken any other ground than that of Christian expediency; but that we shall have a stronger view scientifically and economically, and that we shall be able to show that for every reason of health, comfort, and economy, as well as out of regard to the welfare of others, we ought to bid these articles, one and all, a long and lasting adieu.
Such was the reverent way Dr. Cairns gave heed to the voice of God speaking through a science other than his own. Happy are the students thus taught by good and open-minded teachers. The scientific statements have grown clearer and more emphatic since Dr. Cairns spoke, and they gave the most distinct contradiction to Dr. Salmond’s affirmation that the mqderate use of “alcohol is wholesome and strengthening to the normal human body.”
I am informed by a medical man of high intelligence that the best that can be said on the side of those who hold that alcohol has some value as a “food” is said by Dr. Robert Hutchison, in his “Food and the Principles of Dietetics,” and yet his conclusion is that “alcohol is an unnecessary article of diet in complete health,” and this conclusion is preceded by the statements that it is not “favourable to the production of sustained muscular effort” nor to the “production of perfectly healthy brain-work” —p.p. 333 and 4. Hutchison’s book is dated 1902, and in 1907 Sir Victor Horsley, of London, one of the first brain surgeons of the world, published his “Alcohol and The Human Body,” in which he gave the most weighty evidence to prove the worthlessness of alcohol as a so-called “food,” and that its right place was among the poisons in the druggist shop. Edition after edition of this great book has been published, and its circulation has been immense. And yet Dr. Salmond writes as though science had no intelligible word to say on this question. It may safely be said, in the light of these facts, that the foregoing “academic” statement of Dr. Salmond is neither scholarly nor accurate.
"THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT” WHICH INVOLVES THE SLAVERY OF THE ABJEOT.
“Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee which frameth mischief by law. —Psalm xciv. 20.
Someone has said that “patriotism” was the last refuge of a scoundrel, and it is not too much to say that the “liberty of the subject” plea has been the last refuge of the champion of monopoly and class privilege in his resistance to reform legislation. In the bad old times the moneyed class, at whose shrine Dr. Salmond burns incense on page 57, sent brave sailors to sea in floating coffins, and this class resisted the prohibition of such traffic with the plea that it interfered with the “liberty of the subject!” There was a time when in the Old Country weak women and young lads were harnessed to trucks like beasts in the dark, damp galleries of coal mines, and when it was proposed by legislators to prohibit such a brutalising business the plea was urged that it would interfere with the “liberty of the subject!” And so the “liberty of the subject” is Dr. Salmond’s last refuge in his pamphlet. Hands off the public-house, because it interferes with the “liberty of the subject!” I wish to look at this old scarecrow of an argument decked and dressed out with so much care by Dr. Salmond. In the last section of his pamphlet we have a particular elaboration, in seven divisions, of the function of the State with the view of ruling out as absurd and tyrannical such reforms of the termination of licensed drink monopoly. In this part more than any other part of his pamphlet does he show that he
223
V.
has not studied the very ABC of the question. He ignores the history of tne past legislation on the liquor traffic; he shows a surprising ignorance of the existing prohibitory legislation on our statute books in our Dominion, and he claims for members of a civilised community “natural rights” that cannot bo granted in a civilised community, and the proper place for a man who demands unlimited “natural rights” is a savage island such as Robinson Crusoe occupied. Dr. Salmond all through his pamphlet fails to see that Prohibition is the background of our whole system of license. If we suppose that Dunedin has 60,000 of a population, and that 40 persons are licensed bo sell intoxicating liquors, thus it follows that 59,960 citizens of Dunedin are prohibited from selling such liquors. Now, how does Dr. Salmond’s elaborate argument bear on such a situation? It means this, if it has any logical meaning at all, that the present Prohibition that presses on the 59,960 should oe removed, and they, like the other 40, should be free to sell and push the sale of intoxicating liquors —such liquors as Robert Murray M'Cheyne called “liquid poison,” and Robert Hall called “distilled damnation,” and D. L. Moody called “infernal stuff.” As every man is free to open a baker’s shop, so Dr. Salmond argues, every man should be free to open a whisky shop. It is, he says, an “altogether anomalous” thing to “attempt to forbid and penalise the act of selling a glass” of whisky. Dr. Salmond’s logical position is that of open free trade in strong drink —either by abolishing our licensing system or by giving licenses without limit to anyone and everyone who may apply for such. But Dr. Salmond’s logical position is not the position he really takes up This innocent thing that everybody should be as free to buy as bread —this thing with which, according to Dr. Salmond, the Saviour of man flooded a small marriage company to the extent of 126 gallons—is not such an innocent thing after all, for he says on page 43 that its sale is “fraught with danger. Therefore, in proportion to its dangers, ought it to be under regulation.” In what sense ought it tc be “under regulation” ? Dr. Salmond does nob tell us, but we know than the pet cry of the paid agents of the liquor monopoly—sometimes those agents were professional Atheists and sometimes they were not—was that of “regulation,” and regulation meant our licensing system and our licensing system meant the perpetuation and preservation of the liquor monopoly. Is this what Dr. Salmond means by “regulation”? If it is, then Dr. Salmond shoves Prohibition out of his logical front door and brings it in by the back. Unless Dr. Salmond declares for the free, open sale of intoxicating liquors, his argument that he seems to think of some value is little better than solemn fudge.
In elaborating his argument about the functions of the State, Dr. Salmond makes a number of very curious statements. For example, he says. “So far as I can ascertain there is not now in force a single statute —on the lines proposed by the temperance reformers with regard to the liquor traffic.” This is a very remarkable statement. One won ders how far back Dr. Salmond’s examination of our New Zealand Statutes goes. Did it go as far back as last year? If so, he should have come across the “Phosphorus Matches” Act of 17th September, 1910. Parliament then enacted that after the Ist January, 1912, the importation and manufacture of white phosphorus matches would be prohibited, and the sale would be prohibited the year after. Sound reasons led Parliament to pass this prohibitory law; and yet the traffic in white phosphorus matches never produced the moral, physical, social, and economic evils that the liquor traffic has caused. Dr. Salmond recognises that opium has been prohibited, save as a drug. Has he ever studied the Opium Acts of 1901, 1906, and 1910, and the reasons that led to their being placed on our Statute books? Is it not the case that our Opium Acts were passed for the very same reasons that are urged by Temperance reformers with regard to alcohol? The use of opium, says the writer of the article in Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, “ is probably on allfours with the use of alcohol in this country. Many Chinese smoke
224
opium all their lives in strict moderation without apparent harm, while others have excessive debauchee lasting a week or more, and often become confirmed in its excessive use. The latter without doubt wreck their constitutions, and suffer much the same way as confirmed alcoholics do” (vol. vii., p. 614). Here, then, is a drug for whose popular use all the arguments Dr. Salmond uses in favour of whisky could be applied, and yet it is condemned and banished to the druggists’ shops. As a drug, mixed up with other drugs, it has its place, but the importation of opium suitable for smoking is prohibited, and anyone found smoking opium may be lined £lO. If this opium prohibitory law was passed because the trade in it would prove a nuisance hurtful to the commonwealth, why may not alcohol be treated in the same way? li by this prohibitory law we safeguard a few Chinese, who might be physically ruined and thrown upon us to maintain, why may we not thus safeguard thousands and Tens of thousands of our own countrymen and piotect ourselves by the prohibition of alcohol for common use.' Dr. Salmond has evidently taken little trouble to inform himself with regard to our existing prohibitory legislation. He also fails to recognise that any trade or traffic according to best authorities, that plays the part of the pirate and robs and injures the common weal may be rightly prohibited. The law, the justice, the common sense of such a method of procedure was more than 50 years ago recognised by a leading review in Great Britain as follows: —
“Any trade, employment, or use of property detrimental to the life, health, or order of the people is by English law a public nuisance; and, in suppressing, the State assumes the right of sacrificing private interests to the public good; and this not only when the detriment is physical or economical, but also when it is moral. Now, the liquor traihe and particularly the retail branch of it —is a public nuisance in all three respects, both physically, economically, and morally. By its physical consequences it causes death to thousands, reduces thousands more to madness or idiocy, and afflicts myriads with diseases involving the most wretched forms of bodily and mental tortures. Considered m its economical results, it indirectly causes three-fourths of the taxation required by pauperism and minimal prosecution and prison expenses; and, further, it diminishes the effective industry of the working classes, thereby lessening the amount of national production. Thirdly, viewed in its moral operations, it is the cause of two-thirds of the crime committed.”
If Dr. Salmond considers such a statement as “screaming and cursing,” it is well for him to know that it is the “screaming and cursing” of the “Edinburgh Review” for 1854.
I have ventured to say that unless Dr. Salmond comes out as an advocate of the free-and-open sale of liquor, and as one that seeks the overthrow of our present system of license, his argument about the function of the State is nothing more than solemn fudge. I further venture to say that it is an extraordinary thing nowadays for a man of fair intelligence to rule out any proposed reform as impossible by the simple application of a theory about the function of the State; and this kind of thing Dr. Salmond attempts. I have had knocking about my study for 18 years or so a somewhat silly book entitled “A Plea for Liberty; Essays by Various Writers,” edited by Thomas Mackay, and published by John Murray. It bears on its fore page the quotation from John Milton and adorns Dr. Sahnond’s pamphlet, and it anticipates some of the views he expounds. The writers in this book, arguing from an a priori conception of the functions of the State, fire without mercy at our State schools and our State post office and our public libraries! All these institutions are the evil fruits of State meddling! They spare, like Dr. Salmond, the State licensed grog-shop that sells, as Robert Hall, said “distilled damnation.” Now, this kind of reasoning leads us often into cloudland, and very seldom out of it. I have before me a very interesting pamphlet from the pen of the late Principal Rainy in
is
the form of a letter to the late Dr. John Cairns. Jt was written during the negotiations for church union in Scotland as far back as 1870. Much was made of the function of the State during the controversy. One party contended that it was the function of the State to establish the Church, and another party stoutly contended that the State had nothing to do with Church, and each party justified his position by his theory of the function of the State. Dr. Rainy interposed with the following wise statement;—
"It is only boys and lads, and men who fail to outgrow that condition, who allow themselves to be absolutely ruled by any theory on such a subject as the precise province and rights of the State. . . . There is always a point where theory fails and a wise man learns to recognise it. . . . There is a point in all these matters at which the indication of facts, of Scripture examples, of the pressing exigencies of human affairs, of Christian instincts, guides us far more safely than the last precise deduction from our general theory of the case. To say so is not to be false to our theory; it is only to be true to something greater.”
Dr. Salmond finds in the proposal to cancel all the licenses for the sale of drink “ a serious outrage against the natural rights and liberties of individuals” (page 54). And on page 56 we have the following heroic statements: —“We dare not make any man a slave howsoever much he may abuse his freedom, and howsoever good it may be that someone should determine for him what he should eat and drink.” Dr. Salmond says, “We dare not”; why, what he says “we dare not” we are doing every day. I was preaching in a public institution the other day and I found men there who had “abused their freedom” and they were there by the coercion of the State, and what they ate and drank was settled for them, and the institution was run on strictly total abstinence lines. The institution was a gaol! Does Dr. Salmond consider such institutions a very cruel interference with the “liberty of the subject”? But Dr. Salmond goes on: “In Prohibition I discern the approach of an insidious foe. (How terrible!) If we are not permitted, using our heaven-given freedom, to determine for ourselves what we shall eat and what we shall drink, and in what forms and measures we shall employ the natural bounties of the Creator given by Him for our sustenance and comfort, is there not an outrage on our natural freedom.” Such are the decided and emphatic opinions of Dr. Salmond, and his style of writing reminds me of “What Mr. Robinson Thinks” in the “Biglow Papers,” and the candid opinion of Pastor Wilbur on the same:—
“Pastor Wilbur he calls all these arguments lies;
Sez they’re nothin’ on airth but jes fee, faw, fum ;
An’ that all this big talk of our destinies
Is half on it ign’ance an t’other half rum ;
But John P.
Robinson he
Sez it ain’t no sech thing; an’, of course so must we.”
Dr. Salmond claims “rights” and liberties for the individual which no State under the sun would sanction. His doctrine of “liberty” would lead to anarchy. It is fashionable in some quarters to despise Paley, but such a statement as the following from this old philosopher and divine furnishes a needed corrective to Dr. Salmond: —“To do what we will is natural liberty, to do what we will consistently with the interests of the community to which we belong is civil liberty; that is to say the only liberty to be desired in a state of civil society.” A man says, “My ‘natural rights’ induce me to demand that you should open shops for the sale of opium, or allow such shops to be opened.” The State says, “No; the interest of the community demands the prohibition of the traffic in opium.” Dr. Salmond says, “My ‘natural rights’ induce me to demand that you open shops or allow shops to be opened for the common sale of alcohol.” The State says, “No; the traffic in alcohol was
19
to us a scourge and curse for centuries and in the general interest of the community the traffic is prohibited.” Now, if, in a democratic communitv an overwhelming majority of the citizens in the interest of the community resolve to prohibit the common sale of intoxicating liquors because the traffic has been found hurtful to the commonwealth, where does the tyranny of the business come in? It is surely the highest wisdom to seek to preserve the nation. The real tyrants in this business and the foes of civil freedom are Dr. Salmond and his friends, who demand, because of their likings and habits with regard to alcohol, that this State-destroying traffic should be set up. Such a demand is liberty run mad. The tyranny of a majority may be bad, but the tyranny of a minority would" be worse. Dr. Salmond, on page 57, says the “professional classes” and “prosperous merchants” are nearly all alcohol drinkers and opposed to No-License, and these he calls the country’s “very life and strength.” Do the Christian ministers in many hundreds, the Christian office-bearers in thousands, and the Christian people in tens of thousands who don’t drink alcohol and who vote No-License form no part of the life and strength of the country in Dr. Salmond’s eyes? Dr. Salmond says our No-License must be made by “the votes of women and young persons” (page 57). As those who have votes must be over 21 years of age the “young persons” in foregoing statement must mean “young men.” But why does not Dr. Salmond say so distinctly ? Why does he not frankly and openly flout New Zealand’s young manhood because it is not made up of alcohol drinkers like the privileged classes he holds in such high reverence? An enormous number of the professional and moneyed class will resent strongly Dr. Salmond’s representation of them. Our leading judges, doctors, merchants, lawyers, and statesmen are on the side of temperance, and openly avow that they are so, and I am glad to know from Dr. Salmond that the “young manhood” of New Zealand is with them in the battle in voting for the extinction of the liquor traffic. It is an extraordinary thing for a man like Dr. Salmond, who at one time was a minister of a great democratic Church, to discount the opinions of the masses of the people, and take as a kind of divine voice the sentiments of the privileged classes. Dr. Salmond should know that no member of the moneyed class would tolerate a liquor bar next door to his house. The part that Dr. Salmond played in making of the Presbyterian Church lands an “unoontaminated zone,” as regards the sale of liquor, has been noticed with wondering interest by very many. What Dr. Salmond and the Synod could do as landlords—what the wealthy man can do by his purchase of broad acres —namely, free themselves from the liquor bar and the liquor traffic: this the common people can only do by their votes.
“Uncontaminated zones,” places freed from the liquor traffic by the power of the landlord or by the money of the privileged class, find no word of censure from Dr. Salmond, but “uncontaminated zones” created by the free votes of a free people have no right to exist in Dr. Salmond’s eyes; and the idea of the whole of New Zealand being an “uncontaminated zone,” like the Presbyterian Church lands of Otago, is to him a horror of horrors. Unless we have the liquor traffic the “liberty of the subject” is seriously interfered with! I wonder if Dr. Salmond has ever considered how much the slavery of the abject is involved in the carrying out of his pet theory of liberty. Considerably more than *2O years ago I had as my guest the late Sir 'William Fox, and he gave, in my hearing, a memorable address on David’s refusal to drink the water from the well at Bethlehem, because at the jeopardy of the lives of his men it had been brought to him. The application of the story was obvious. You demand strong drink : do you know what it costs those in the traffic to bring it to you? How do the families reared behind our liquor bars fare? Dr. Norman M‘Leod, of Scotland, when he went to his charge in Dalkeith, took a note of the families of the publicans of the place. After the lapse of years he followed up tin. history of the members of those families. The record he thus made is given in his biography—it is an awful story of murder, suicide, immor-
20
ality, and degradation. Does Dr. Salmond know anything of the appalling death rate of those engaged in the liquor traffic? How do Life Assurance Societies treat those engaged in the traffic? They will either “load” the life or they will not insure it at all. The General Assurance office, of 105 Cannon Street, London, some years ago, issued a circular in which it intimated that owing to the excessive mortality among publicans it would not undertake such risks on any terms (Scientific Temperance Handbook, p. 249). The Registrar-General of England published some years ago the death rate per 1000 of the following professions and trades as follows: —Clergymen, 4.64; barristers, 7.54; brewers, 13.90; publicans, 18.02; publicans’ servants, 22.63. Dr. Salmond says if people vote No-License, if they don’t believe in National NoLicense, they “will rivet shackles on their own bodies.” And I would simply add that if they take Dr. Sa’mond’s advice and vote License, they will drag men into a business the temptations of which are so great that ruin of body and soul will be the lot of not a few 7 . Yes, the professional classes specified by Dr. Salmond may clink their wineglasses and drink to the “Liberty of the Subject,” but if they w 7 ould listen, they might hear the chains of the aljects clanking as they marched down to perdition. The vote for License urged by Dr. Salmond means the ruin of body and soul of many that will engage in it, and for this reason alone (apart from the flood of other evils) the Christian and the patriot should vote No-License.
VI.
COD’S CALL TO NEW ZEALAND IN THE PRESENT CRISIS.
“The struggle of the school, the Library, the Church, all united against the beerhouse and the gin-palace, is but one development of the war between heaven and hell.” —Charles Buxton, the Brewer.
In every moral crisis in the life of the individual, the Church, and the State, two voices are ever heard —the song of the Siren luring to destruction, and the voice of the Saviour calling to Salvation. This year, and especially the month of November next, marks a period of crisis in New Zealand with regard to the scourge of alcohol. From the beginning of our Dominion it has been in the hands of a minority to thrust the drink traffic upon a community. To-day it is in the power of a minority to perpetuate the liquor traffic wherever it is carried on. But it is in the power of a majority—a three-fifths majority—to end, at the ballot-box, the liquor traffic, and make our land from end to end free from the drink bar which is daily destroying some of New Zealand’s brightest sons. A tremendous burden of responsibility thus rests upon the citizens of our land. Every voter that at the ballot-box votes for the drink traffic becomes responsible in a sense for the broken hearts, moral wrecks, and ruined lives that are ever the fruit of this baneful business. In this crisis the voices of every section of the Evangelical Church sound a clear guiding call. Total abstinence for the individual, and No-License for the State is the platform occupied by Christian reformers. The Evangelical Church has taken up this position in loyalty to the Message of God in Redemption; in loyalty to God’s Word in science; it has had regard to centuries of failure to regulate the traffic ; and it sees no tyranny in terminating a traffic which is already a prohibited traffic save when licensed. The Evangelical Church occupies in New Zealand no isolated position on this matter. In the United States, where the largest Evangelical Churches in the world are to be found, those Churches are in the van in this fight. In Britain, where, as Lord Rosebery said, the liquor traffic was a “political ring which threatens to throttle and control the commonwealth itself” (“Times,” July 3,
228
1895), the Churches cannot call upon the citizens to exercise a power that they do not possess, but the Evangelical Church there, in the name of the Lord, “displays its banner.” How clear and unmistakable, for example, is the call of the United Free Church of Scotland (that more than once has made groat sacrifices for its freedom) on this question In 19U6, for example, the General Assembly, with great enthusiasm dared as follows: —The Assembly strongly recommend the practice of total abstinence as an effective means of counteracting the evils connected with strong drink. The Assembly feel constrained to warn their faithful people to resist the temptation to engage in the liquor traffic lest they be drawn into a position of great physical, moral, and spiritual danger . . The Assembly urgently call upon the Government to introduce a Bill to confer on the people of the land the power to veto the liquor traffic” (Blue Book, 1906, p. 259). Such is the Church's call in this conflict. It voices the mind of Him who came to save society as well as the individual soul. It is the siren’s song Dr. Salmond sings in his pamphlet. The voice of the living Church says, with regard to alcohol: “Drink not, sell not, license not.” The message of Dr, Salmond is the opposite of all this, and his message is so congenial to the liquor traffic that they make his pamphlet their fighting weapon to-day. Dr Salmond euphoniously designates places for the open sale of drink as the “vineyard,” but Bishop Julius has said that the liquor bar is a “disgrace to our civilisation and Christianity.” The liquor bar a “vineyard”! If it is so, what awful fruit it produces! Sherard the Australian poet, describes the fruits of such a “vineyard” in’ his “Satan’s Ganymede.” (See “Australian Ballads,” p. 190.) In a score or so of verses the poet tells of a bushman who, after seven vears’ toil away from temptation, had been freed from his craving for drink He is returning with a well-filled purse to the city, and on the way'stops to rest at a hotel with its liquor bar. The old craving is awakened and he drinks and drinks till his money is gone, and then, like a squeezed orange, he is flung outside; but here the poet may tell his own tale —a tale as tragic as it is true:—
Greedy poison-vepdor, leering
At your work! the end is nearing,
Drive him from your door!
Though your parrot, not as stingy
Screeches, in your parlour dingy
“Only one drink more.”
Though your victim sinks yet deeper
“You are not your brother’s keeper!”
Mouth your hateful creed.
Cain than you, was fairer fighter.
Do you dream your guilt is lighter
Satan’s Ganymede?
All is squandered; all is ended,
I'Toiii a leafless tree suspended
Rots a wasted frame.
For that sudden deed of evil
Neither suicide nor devil
May bo most to blame.
'i Bh tlHs is the fruit of what Dr. Salmoml oupliouiouslv calls the “viueiiVhf / ’f Ve S , ( ' , ' ll / i "' s f , ru ! t wore than once, and the memorv of the M„ht gets burned into ones brain. The other year the writer lifted up w* ss-s rr.x;«
22
good-bye to you. Oh, my God, it’s no good; I can’t live without drink, and drink is Hell to me. All the good you have tried to do for me has never done me any good, for drink got too much for me. Break the news to my mother as well as you can.” That letter caused hot, blistering tears to roll down not a few cheeks that day, and many resolved that never again would they at a ballot-box vote into existence a yawning hell of temptation to devour our young men and to break mothers’ hearts. The call of God to abolish the liquor traffic is sounding in the ears of the Christian and the patriot. Can a Christian pray that God’s Kingdom may come, and then go to the ballot-box and vote into existence a liquor bar? Can a patriot who cares for the best interest of his country go to the ballot-box and vote for the perpetuation of a traffic that brings ruin both on seller and buyer? In the words of James Runciman, I make my closing appeal:—“By the memory of broken hearts, by the fruitless prayers of mothers and sorrowing wives, for the sake of the children who are forced to stay on earth in a living hell, I ask the strong to help the weak. Blighted lives, wrecked intellects, wasted brilliancy, poisoned morality, rotted will —all these mark the road that the king of evils takes in his darksome road.”
“In the beauty of the lilies
Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom
That transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy,
Let us live to make men free,
uriy ua ii*r tu inane nn'ii I 1 it, While God is marching on.”
Presbyterian Church of New Zealand
TEMPERANCE COMMITTEE’S MANIFESTO.
TO THE MEMBERS AND ADHERENTS OF OUR CHURCH.
Ladies and Gentlemen, —
Our Church has always taken a clear and strong stand against the liquor traffic. It is, therefore, most fitting that all Presbyterians should take an active interest in the present campaign in preparation for the approaching Poll. At this Poll we shall have the opportunity, for the first time, of voting, not only for Local No-License, but also for Dominion Prohibition. So far as the No-License Policy has come into operation it has been attended by a gratifying measure of success In the twelve No-License Electorates of our Dominion there has been a substantial decrease in drinking. Returns for 1910 show that: —
£ s. d.
For the whole Dominion, the Consumption of Liquor per head of the population was 3 13 1
But in License Electorates it was 4 3 1
While in No-License Electorates it was only 0 18 0
per head of the population, or little more than one-fifth of the consumption in License electorates. In the No-License electorates also.
23
less drinking means less crime, and greater prosperity more money in Savings Banks, more money in circulation, and a better tone in the community. So that this policy is evidenllly worth extending.
The vote for Dominion Prohibition appeals to us strongly, as furnishing an opportunity of challenging the existence of the liquor traffic throughout our land-a traffic that is the fruitful parent of so many evils And New Zealand, because of its geographical position, furnishes a unique opportunity for bringing Prohibition into effective operation.
We would, therefore, strongly urge you to help in the following ways:—
1. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS TO VOTE BOTH FOR LOCAL NOLICENSE AND FOR DOMINION PROHIBITION BY STRIKING OUT THE TOP LINE ON BOTH PAPERS.
2. Seek to use what personal influence you have, so as to win votes for the cause.
3 At your Annual Meeting, or at a Special Church Meeting, get a resolution passed, pledging all present to help the cause of Local NoLicense and Dominion Prohibition in every possible way.
4 Be ready to serve on Local Canvassing Committees, so that in every' district throughout the Dominion a thorough house-to-house canvass may be carried out in the interests of Local No-License and Dominion Prohibition.
5 Set your Minister free, as far as possible, from mid-week duties for the next three or four months, so that he may devote a good part of his time to helping in this strenuous campaign against the liquor traffic.
6. Above all, we would ask you to abound in prayer that God would be pleased to bless the labours of all who are active in the cause, and that it would seem good to Him graciously to crown our efforts with a large measure of success.
Issued by the authority and direction of the General Assembly, in name of the Temperance Committee.
ALEX. MILLER,
Convener
Edendale,
Auckland, June 30, 1911.
W. J. Lankshkar, Printer, 354 Lambton Quay, Wellington.
Is No License a Success?
Jin HARRIS,
KARAKA CREEK, THAMES,
WHO WENT TO SEE FOR HIMSELF.
Wright and Carman. Printers, US Pcatherston Street Wjtn
EDITOR’S NOTE.
There will be found in this little work no reference to the three No-License districts of Eden, Wellington South, and Wellington Suburbs. The reason is not that No-License does not work beneficially in those districts, but that they are so closely adjacent to License districts, and their criminal and other statistics are so inextricably bound up in those of the License districts, that it is hopeless to attempt to make a case. Suffice it to say that from those districts Licenses have gone for Good.
B.H.L.
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE THAMES NO-LICENSE LEAGUE. My Dear Friends, —
The following booklet is the result of my personal investigations into the condition of No-License districts in the Dominion of New Zealand. I was not asked by any Temperance organisation, either in your or any other electorate, to make these investigations. 1 undertook to do so on my own responsibility, paying my own expenses all along the line, in order to qualify myself for the work which, as your organiser and agent in the coming campaign, you desire me to perform.
During the campaign of 1908 I was worse off financially than if I had remained at my usual occupation. This will be repeated during the coming fight. Moreover, it takes time and money to visit and spend a reasonable time in a dozen districts, and not even the bitterest of my opponents can say that I am in this fight for what I can make out of it. I have the cause at heart, and am satisfied if my endeavours help to lift humanity to a higher plane of life. Prior to commencing my tour at Invercargill, I called in at Napier, Wellington, Lyttelton, Christchurch, and Dunedin, all under License. Landing at Dunedin on Easter Sunday morning, between 9 a.m. and noon on that day I saw no less than 15 drunks. I spoke to several of them, who told me that one could get as much drink as one liked in several of the pubs in Dunedin. Some were so stupefied with drink that they did not know the locality they were in; others were so far gone that I could get no sense out of them whatever.
Since I had been told so often of the amount of drunkenness in No-License areas, and since I had seen the conditions in Licensed areas, I fully made up my mind that if I saw the same conditions to exist in No-License areas as I saw in Licensed areas, I would return to Thames a staunch advocate of Licenses until a better plan was hit upon. As a result of my inspection lam more ardently in favour of No-License than ever.
Yours in the fight.
December, igio.
JIM HARRIS.
INVERCARGILL (Carried No-Llcense 1905).
Invercargill, on the Waihopai Estuary, is the chief town of Southland, and is one of the best laid out towns of the Dominion, with streets extra wide, well paved, well built, and well lighted. The municipal pumping plant and water-tower give a good supply of artesian water. Well-kept public gardens divide the town into northern and southern portions. The Government buildings are on a large scale. A Town Hall and Theatre of fine architectural appearance has just been erected by the municipality at a cost of £20,000. At my visit, new shops and offices, to the value of £12,000, were being erected for Sir Joseph Ward. Other recent buildings are the Girls’ High School, the Technical School, and the Roman Catholic Basilica.
The-town is-growing rapidly. In 1905 the population was somewhat over 11,000; it has now (1910) about 14,790 inhabitants, a gain of over 34 per cent. Yet No-License drives away population !
When No-License was carried the licenses cancelled were those of 16 hotels, 5 wholesale houses, and one club. Surely this must have had some effect for good or bad! The above statements about population and building activity speak well for Invercargill under NoLicense. But there is more to be said.
From my own personal observations, Invercargill is free from public drunkenness. I saw only one person drunk in the main street during my three weeks’ stay there. I was told that if I paraded the streets at midnight I should see plenty of drunks. I paraded the streets early in the morning, through the day, and late at night, but I found none, and 1 now give the lies back to those that made them. I will say, though, that at the boarding-house where I stayed, there were two men—one in for a holiday from his farm—who indulged pretty freely in drinking whisky. These two were determined to drink in spite of all reason.
And although there is a fair amount of alcohol consumed in Invercargill, I should certainly say, from what I could observe, that it is nothing near the quantity that was drunk when the 16 hotels were selling. And Ido not believe that there is drink going into the homes into which it never went under License. I draw my conclusions from the conversations I had with many people in the district.
Business men said they had no room to complain, except that competition was keener; for many new businesses have started in Invercargill since the advent of No-License.
Liquor advocates predicted that if No-License were carried property would go down in value, rates would be increased, there would be a serious loss of business, tourists would no longer visit the town, sly-grog shops would spring up everywhere, there would be a lower moral tone, and so on. When, however, one visits a No-License district, and, as 1 did, strikes up conversations with prominent local liquor men, one finds these declaring it madness for those liquor advocates to make such assertions; for no one knows better than the residents themselves what splendid forward strides are being made under No-License.
To Mr. C. S. Longuet, the then Mayor of Invercargill, and himself a non-abstainer, I submitted certain questions. He answered them in the following letter :
Mr. Jim Harris. 28th April, 1010.
Dear Sir, —I duly received your letter of 26th inst., and have much pleasure in answering your questions, as under, to the best of my ablity. I trust that your visit has been a pleasant one, and that you will carry away with you some favourable impressions of jar town ana district
235
i, “Property would go down in value.” Answer. —The prophecy has not been fulfilled, but on the contrary, property has gone on steadily increasing in value, so that up to the present time the increase is very great. Even the hotel properties are in most cases now worth more than at the time of No-License being carried.
2. “Rates would be increased.”
Answer.—Rates themselves have not gone up, but. on the contrary have gone down, although individuals are in most cases paying more 5 owing to increased valuations. Personally, Ido not consider there’is anything in the rate question either one way or the other, as by closing the hotels the license fees must be lost to the Borough revenue, but the amount to individual ratepayers is not worth considering, and in Invercargill has not been worth notice. 05 r-., • c -1 nnc c- tn I ar on 11 7
3. “There would be a serious loss of business to Invercargill.
Answer. —Business generally has gone on improving. 1 am convinced No-License has, on the whole, been beneficial to most businesses. . .
4. “Tourists would no longer visit the town.” . , 1 1 _ 1 , „ w ,i » roHctldf Tmm (TPtl OT •
Answer. —I have no records, but am quite satisfied, from general observation, that there has been no effect one way or the other. ,/ci ’ 1. 1,1 „n /11-Qn-ii ViprP
5. “Sly-grog shops would spring up everywhere. . t wa? rrinrp
Answer. —I say, without hesitation, that there was more sl\-grog selling under License than under No-License.
uuuv-i v “ , ~ 6. “There would be a lower moral tone.
Answer. —The expression “moral tone” may have various meanings, but in a broad sense the “moral tone” is undoubtedly higher.
7. “Has Hotel property increased or decreased in value?”
Answer.—ln the abstract, Hotel properties are now more valuable except a few in poor localities, that were simply drinking shops. Of course, with License, values might have been still higher.
B.’“What moral effects has No-License had upon Invercargill?”
Answer.—“ Moral effects” are difficult to state in a general way, and without details, but unquestionably a No-License town is the most pleasant to live in. ...
q. “Has there been a decrease in Liquor duties? 1 »c„ i-f-itictmc ann I navp nnnp
Answer. —*Duties are better taken from statistics, and 1 have none at present before me. The duties collected here are absolutely no guide, as they include large License districts.
Yours faithfully, rrnr’ > t A\imrT vi.
CHAS. S. LONGUET, Mayor.
Invercargill.
A report of a speech delivered by the Mayor-elect (Mr. VV. A, Ott) of Invercargill on the affairs and finances of the municipality appeared in the “Southland Times” of April 27th. 1910. That day I saw Mr. Ott in his office, and asked him if he had been faithfully reported. He replied that he had, and gave me a note to that effect. T L «V. 1 Vt/Mirr 1-1 a trovorcori fKo ll'lmlp (XT nil n H flf n Vir
In his speech of 2} hours, he traversed the whole ground ot civic matters, and among other things, showed: nru„ r.ra'itor Inorm 11 nac -f S'? *7 S T
i. The whole debt of Greater Invercargill was £207,781, £135,000 of which was invested in interest-earning concerns, such as gas works, water works, harbour, abattoirs, quarry, and Tewn Hall. Against these debts, thev had property worth £302,989, this valuation being on a low basiss. Beyond that, the capital value of Greater Invercargill was, by the Official Year Book, £2,067,447—3 magnificent security to have to offer on loans.
*1907, under No-License, brought over £6,000 more to the Customs than 1906. The duty paid on beer, wines, and spirits decreased bv £2,318 in nine months of No-License.
236
2. Ihe Gas Account was in such a flourishing state that he proposed to reduce the price of gas for lighting purposes from 6s. Bd. to ss. tod. per 1000 ft., the price already charged for heating and cooking ; also, to make future extensions to the suburbs out of profits.
3. Such confidence had the citizens in the future of their town that Invercargill was about to establish an Electric Tramway, costing £75,000.
These are stubborn facts, and interested Liquor prophets who foresaw such dire disaster in store for Invercargill should find some other line of business.
The criminal statistics for Invercargill are dealt with in a valuable contribution to the “Southland Times” of January 15, 1910: —“A return was recently presented to Parliament in consequence of repeated requests by the No-License party, for the following reasons: Of the convictions recorded in Invercargill, many of the offences were committed outside the district, and were brought before the Court here solely for convenience of trial. The criminal statistics of the area under No-License were thus unduly inflated, and to remedy this, the return, differentiating between offences occurring in the No-License area and those occurring outside such area, was obtained. It shows that out of a total of 941 convictions, 213 of the offences took place outside the No-License area. Invercargill can thus be properly credited with only 728 for the two years.
Accompanying this we furnish a comparative statement of criminality and breaches of the law in Invercargill for the periods of two years before and after the coming- into effect of No-License. The figures are taken from another return recently presented to Parliament. In this return all classes of offences were included and counted together, making it somew'hat difficult to ascertain actual criminality as distinguished from minor breaches of the law. Classification of the various offences sets forth the matter clearly.
It will be noted that general criminal offences show' a considerable decrease, about 20 per cent, in favour of the No-License period; and this in spite of the fact that many offences occurring outside the area are included.
The increase of offences under Liquor and similar Acts was to be expected as the outcome of legislation creating a new class of offences. These are likely to decline as the people get habituated to the system.
The increase in the other minor offences is largely due to the more stringent administration of the laws relating to the health, convenience, and general well-being of the community. The operation of No-License has a tendency to create a higher standard of living and to purify the atmosphere morally and socially, so as to afford opportunity for the better development of humanity. VVe owe much of the happy results achieved to the earnestness and wisdom of the police and Magistracy in the execution of their onerous duties.
The criminal statistics for 1908-09 are not yet available; but we make the following: extract from the annual police report just presented to Parliament. Inspector Mitchell, of Invercargill, in his report, says:—“ The maintenance of order in the streets of Invercargill has been verv marked during the year, and the number of cases of drunkenness (68) has been few, remembering the facilities that exist for legitimately obtaining liquor. In all the cases, except one or two, the source whence the liquor was obtained was traceable to places outside the No-License area. There have been 23 convictions for slygrog selling, resulting in several sentences of three months’ imprisonment and fines totalling ,£315- I am pleased to say that at the present time there is no evidence that such offences are being committed in this district to any appreciable extent.”
6
General Criminal Offences, Including Drunkenness.
uencrai urilinnai Miivirovu, •■ • . . . Convictions. Committals,
1904-6 (2 years before No-License) ... 539 2 9
1906-8 (2 years after No-License) ... 4 2 6 22
Offences under Liquor, Opium, and Tobacco Acts.
Period. Convictions.
1904-6 ••• 47
IQO6 8 n :., n J K/i-l
21s of the total offences were committed outside the -No-License area and must therefore not be counted against it; 163 cases of drunkenness were traceable to sources outside the No-License area.
Lunacy commitments by the Invercargill Court tor recent years have been as follows: — Invercargill Town. License Area Round
2 years previous to No-License ... 19 ~°
2 years since No-License l 3
Hoist With Their Own Petard.
INVERCARGILL v. PORT CHALMERS.
In the “Lyttelton Times” of June 27, the ' I rade inserted an advertisement, at which they expected the world, or at least that part of it which takes the trouble to read—and endeavours to believe—their advertisements, to hold up its hands in holy horror. It was a record in diary form, of Invercargill’s drink happenings during about three weeks. Not to be outdone, the Editor of the Temperance Column of the “Lyttelton Times” took the trouble to complete the diary for the whole of June, and also to make up a similar diary for the town of Port Chalmers, which has less than one-fifth of the population of Invercargill. To make a good showing our side do not need to take a man’s arrest as one offence and his fine by the Court as another, though the Trade’s scribe had to do so on more than one occasion to get a big enough list for Invercargill. Perhaps it would be well to say that the following is a “corrected” diary:—
N.L. Invercargill
(Population, 12,000).
Tune I—l1 —1 drunk fined* J - J 1.
s—l drunk fined ” “ - j c. 1
~ 5 —2 drunks fined 1 disturbance
~ 6—Drunk in train
’, B—Raid on Poff’s for slygrog, convicted on 23rd
~ 10 —1 drunk fined ” o 1;
~ 11 —Some palings pulled off a picket fence
13 —1 drunk fined
~ 16 —1 drunk fined
17 —1 drunk fined ” _ .1 1. c. 1
~ 30 —-1 drunk fined 1 obstruction of police
Total— 14 matters.
*The above offenders, it must be remembered also, nearly all came to town drunk from tl c near-by Licensed areas, and were arrested on arrival.
L. Port Chalmers
(Population, 2,200). - » /I run I* finon
June 3 —1 drunk fined * Va T-nn/'n nrcvninitlATt
s—l breach prohibition order . -
1 supply of liquor to prohibited person
~ 11 —1 prohibition order granted
~ 12 —1 drunk convicted
1 drunk assault
~ 15 —3 drunks fined
1 obscene language
1 indecency
~ 18 —1 drunk fined t r\ -> rinink
~ 19 —2 drunks nned
~ 23 —1 drunk fined
1 drink-caused theft
2 drunks
2 men in danger of life
1 disgusting assault
~2224 —2 bad breaches prohi bition orders
~ 26 —1 alleged drunkenness on licensed premises
~ 29 —1 prohibition order granted
~ 30 —3 drunken men had bestial affray
Total —27 matters.
7
In both of the above lists, where a person committed another offence, such as obscene language, while drunk, they are counted as two separate matters.
Thus, with less than one-fifth of Invercargill’s population, Port Chalmers had almost twice as many "drink affairs’’ as the former, and many of them "affairs” of a much worse type —a very striking object lesson on the comparative merits of License and No-License.
The effect of No-License on the Tourist Traffic in New Zealand generally is dealt with at the end of this book.
CORE (No-License 1902).
Gore, 40 miles north-east of Invercargill, is the most prosperous inland town in the South Island. It has good country around it, and has a large wool and grain trade, with fellmongery, flour mills, dairy factory, and meat preserving works. There are other industries in the Borough, and gold-dredging on the river. The town is lit by electricity, and has also a high-pressure water supply. Twenty-six years ago there were onty a few settlers on the plains, and Gore did not exist. Its rapid rise is accounted for by the fact that its position is unrivalled as a centre of traffic, and especially so after the opening of the railways on several sides of it.
My impressions of Gore were most favourable. But I wasn’t satisfied to form my own impressions only. I made necessary inquiries, and, as a result, I found there were no empty houses in Gore. There were said to be on the agents’ books 40 families who were occupying apartments and waiting for houses to be let or built. I found no bankruptcy cases among the tradespeople; businesses were in a perfectly sound condition. Buildings were going up everywhere, including a new Public Library of brick and plaster—a ,£2.000 gift from Carnegie.
I came across people who had come to live in Gore from Licensed areas, because it was pleasant to live in a No-License area. There were no unemployed in Gore. The Town Clerk informed me that property during the last five years had gone up in value from 20 to 25 per cent. ; also that Gore had expended ,£30,000 in electric lighting, water, sewage schemes, and that the rates had gone up one pennyin the poundj another year, however, would see them back on the old footing again. He showed me, not far from his office, a Gentlemen’s Club conducted on purely temperance lines. Started a few' years ago with 18 or 19 members,, it now has a membership of 80 or go. It has never permitted the “locker system.”
I saw Gore on the busiest days of the week—Wednesday and Saturday—and found that I w'as in a sober community. I attended the sales, which in licensed days were never known to be conducted without several men becoming the worse for liquor. I looked keenly for similar results, but saw not one man under the influence of alcohol. The farmers came into town, did their business, and went home early—sober. Some of them told me that when the pubs were open they never knew when they would get home. “It is a good thing the pubs have gone,” they said.
I stayed at the Southland Hotel, which is kept by Mrs Landels, and the accommodation and catering were excellent. The house was comfortable, commodious, and cleaner by far than some of the big licensed hotels I have stayed at in the larger towns. My hostess told me that 20 rooms had been added to the hotel, and if she had 20 more she could fill them all. She was employing more hands and paying better wages than ever was done under License. “In fact.” she said, “all the hotels have been enlarged, and are doing likewise.”
I had read that a Mr. John McGibbon, the principal merchant of Gore, declared that he had collected an accumulation of book debts to the value of £lO,OOO, with a loss not exceeding 3 per cent., a result which would be impossible in a “License” district. When in Gore I
239
made it my duty to see Mr. McGibbon, and he assured me that the above statement was perfectly correct. Many other business men testified to increase in their business.
While I was at Gore, the retiring Mayor, Mr. A, A. McGibbon, in his farewell remarks to the Council, bore testimony to the progress made in Gore since he first joined the Council as a member in 1897. Then, he said, there was no proper drainage system, and they also had dark streets, and hardly any footpaths, whilst the annual value of property was £14,220, and the revenue from rates £7ll- Now they had an annual value of £24,000, and rates £3,900; they had an up-to-date system of drainage, equal to that of any of the cities, a splendid water supply, public abattoirs, electric lighting, miles of asphalt paths, good public gardens, and generally everything was in the latest style.
Mr. McGibbon’s parting advice to the Council was as follows; “It must be admitted that the town is growing rapidly, and that being so, your policy must be kept up-to-date, as by this means alone you will attract attention and draw people to your town.”
Crime Decrease —As Usual.
I obtained the following lists from the Clerk of the Court at Gore
1901. 1902. 1908. 1909.
Common Assault ... ... ... ... 4 6 2 1
Mischief ... ... ... ... ... 2 1 3 3
Theft ... ... ... ... ... 17 7 2 10
Sly-grog Selling ... ... ... ... 1 6 6
Breach of the Peace ... ... ... 2 6
Drunkenness ... . ... 67 73 29 18
lyiuunvuuuoa ... ... ... Under Destitute Persons’ Act and Married Person’s Summary Separation Act ... 12 5 4 5
Lunacy ... ... ... ... ... 5 6 1 3
■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ~ j Obscene and Indecent Language ... 3 4 22
Obstruct. Police, Disorderly Behaviour, etc. 2 13
Prohibition Orders ... ... ... 22 22 3 5
Breaches of Prohibition Orders ... ... 4 3 4
Vagrancy ... ... ... ... 1
Total (crimes attributable to drink) . 141 134 57 56
Total (for all crimes) ... ... ... 189 211 115 105
A Brewer’s Testimony.
The following statement was made to me by the Gore brewer, outside his own brewery. I found him a thorough gentleman to speak to, and many in Gore told me that he was as good-hearted and good-natured a fellow as one could wish to meet: —
“I can speak from an experience of 25 years in Gore. Twentyfive years ago Gore contained about 300 people; now it contains 4,000 odd. Gore will become a great and prosperous town in spite of the fact that No-License has been carried. It has made a steady progress all along the line; thanks, however, to the fact that Gore has a beautiful agricultural country at the back of it. Nevertheless, the fact that No-License exists has not stopped the progress of the town and district surrounding it. You can walk all over the town and suburbs and can’t find an empty house.
“There are families living in apartments owing to the want of houses. And yet you will observe that there are buildings going up everywhere. The tradespeople are doing a really good business. There is no such thing as people going bankrupt in Gore. Owing to the prosperity of the town, the authorities have borrowed about ,£30,000 for an electric light plant, and water and sewage schemes. And Gore is as well lighted as any town in New Zealand. Property has gone up in value on an average about 25 per cent.
9
“People did not go away from Gore, as was anticipated, i NoLicense was carried; on the other hand, people are flocidng into the district. 1 must admit that No-License has done good to hundreds who used to frequent the hotels under License. And although there are many drinkers in Gore, yet it is a kind of drinking that prevents anything in the shape of public drunkenness.
“♦Personally, 1 am doing a better trade than 1 did before the advent of No-License. Certainly, 1 must admit candidly that Ido not believe for one moment that there is as much liquor coming into the district now as did come prior to No-License being carried. Consequently, there cannot be so much consumed.”
BALCLUTHA (No-License 1894).
My next visit was to Balclutha, a borough and county town situaed on the Molyneaux River. Balclutha (Little Clutha) is usually spoken of unofficially as “The Clutha.” It is the centre of an extensive farming district, and is perhaps best known throughout the Dominion as the first town in New Zealand to carry No-License, which it has retained successfully since. Its population is about 1,600.
The town is well lighted by gas, has several stores, temperance hotels and boarding-houses, two banks, and the usual postal and other facilities, and Government offices.
Clutha is the portion of New Zealand that the Liquor party do not care to tackle. It is the oldest district under No-License. It has reduced crime to such an extent, it has caused so much discomfiture to the “Trade,” it has made such progress under No-License, that the Liquor party will not have anything to do with Clutha. It is new places they like to deal with, such as Invercargill, Mataura, Gore, Oamaru, Ashburton, Masterton, Grey Lynn, and Ohinemuri. Only a little while, and these new places will have reduced crimes and drunkenness like unto what Clutha has done, so that the Liquor party will leave them alone, too, as they do Clutha. The time is not far distant when New Zealanders as a nation will say to the Liquor Traffic: “We have suffered you long enough. As an intelligent body of people we have determined that our Dominion shall be free from the evil effects of alcohol.”
Clutha has stood the test for 16 years. She lives and thrives through it all. “The victory was decisive, No-License being carried by 1,642 votes to 487. This victory was afterwards somewhat nullified by the action of the then Magistrate (Mr. Hawkins), who granted wholesale licenses at Balclutha, Tapanui, and Kelso, in opposition to the strongly-expressed wish of every member of a Licensing Committee elected pledged to grant No Licenses, the Local Option vote at that time covering only publicans’, accommodation, and bottle licenses. These wholesale licenses ceased to exist after the first poll under the Act of 1895.”
At the time of my visit several thousand pounds worth of new buildings were under construction, the shops being let in advance. The “Free Press” building, of brick and plaster, is a fine piece of work, and it has gone up during No-License; whereas they used to conduct their business in a small shop that was leased. The Editor in conversation, admitted that he was not a Prohibitionist, but he candidly admitted also that No-License has done good for Clutha.
I also visited the Editor of the “Clutha Leader” (a strong- opponent of No-License at one time), and he assured me that No-License in Clutha had every possible tendency to diminish drunkenness and crime, and encouraged prosperity on every hand. There are no bankruptcy cases in Balclutha. Businesses are flourishing. I visited
♦The explanation is that when Hotels were licensed they imported chiefly Dunedin beer, consequently when the hotels were closed local consumers preferred to buy their beer at the brcwerv. Hence the brewer’s “better trade under No-License ”
241
the sMeyard on the busiest day of the week, and was profoundly impressed by the sober crowd of farmers I saw there. During keen observation I failed to see one man influenced by drink To me. Clutha seemed to be absolutely free from drunkenness. I called at the Police Court, and asked the Clerk of the Court if he could give me the figures showing how many drunks had been arrested during the past six months. He replied: "I have been here in Clutha for three months, and I can honestly say that I have not seen one person drunk in that time. I have no figures to offer to you.”
To the Sergeant of Police, who was present, I said: “What are the criminal statistics like in Clutha?”
He answered: “Three drunks off the train in 12 months in the year 1909.”
I asked him what about sly-grog shops? “Very little, if any Hardly traceable. There is no ‘locker system’ in Clutha.”
As the Sergeant travels a good deal through the district, I ventured to ask him if he thought the farmers had lost by No-License. He replied; “They are a Scotch community, and they’ll see to the right and proper thing existing here.”
There are no unemployed in Clutha, and no empty houses. The Town Clerk, Mr. Mitchell, informed me that the rate on annual value was, from 1893 to 1903, is. in the £, with the exception of the year 1895, when it was is. 3d. Since that time the rate has been 2}d. in the £ on Unimproved Value, with the exception of the years 1904 and 1905, when it was 3d. No-License did not permanently raise the rates.
MILTON (Bruce Electorate. Won No-Llcense 1902, but vote declared void. Won again 1908).
Milton, formerly known as Tokomairiro, is a prosperous inland borough and county town. It is on the Tokomairiro River, on the main line from Dunedin. Its population is about 1,400. It has a flour mill, dairy factory, woollen mill, fellmongery, brick works, cordial manufactory, coal pits, and pottery works. It has two banks, two bi-weekly newspapers, a Government poultry farm, and the usual postal facilities.
I arrived in Milton on the evening of Saturday, May 7th. It was a busy night in the main street. All the shops were open, and many people were gathered together, many having come from outside districts. I keenly observed the manner of the people, and I can truthfully say that I saw not a solitary drunk in the main street, where I spent most of the evening. About g.30 p.m. people were thinning out, making for their homes. I walked for the last time from one end of the town to the other. I then entered a hair-dressing saloon. After I had been sitting in the shop for about ten minutes a young man of 23_or 24 years of age came in. He was about three parts drunk. He said he was “John L. Sullivan,” and didn’t care for the best man in Milton. He pulled out of his pocket a whisky bottle, and asked the barber to have a drink, which was politely declined. After some “language” because no one would drink with him, he left the shop.
I remarked to the barber that 1 had been walking through the street the whole evening, and though keenly observant, had seen no drunkenness. He replied: “I’ll tell you the secret of that young fellow’s condition. He is as nice a young fellow as one could wish to meet when sober, but he’s a terror when he does get some whisky. Three of them drove to Henley, 14 miles distant, this afternoon. There is a licensed hotel here. Many people woud be inclined to think that a case like that would be common in Milton, but it is not. I happen to know that he has been to Henley to-day, with the result that he is drunk in Milton to-night.”
uiai iiv 10 ui uun iu luuiuu iu-ui^iu. On Sunday morning 1 visited the most likely places for persons ti be seen surrounding a keg of beer, but I saw nothing.
242
On Monday morning I had a talk with some of the business people, and they expressed a desire never to see licenses restored. “Milton has not had a fair trial yet, it being only 12 months since No-License came into operation. However, so far we are very well satisfied. It will get better still as we gain further experience.”
There are no such things as bankruptcy cases in Milton. The town is in a very sound way. Gas has been laid on since No-License came in.
I did not see any use in staying longer in Milton, so I left on the Tuesday for Oamaru.
OAMARU (No-License 1905).
Oamaru, on the sea coast, 78 miles north of Dunedin, is one of the handsomest towns of its size in the Southern Hemisphere. Built largely of tfie celebrated “Oamaru stone,” of a light, almost white colour, becoming harder the longer it is exposed, the town is often spoken of as “The White City,” and with its wide and well laid-out streets, has 5. very substantial appearance. It is the centre of an extensive and rich farming district, its chief exports being wool and grain.
Large freezing works, limestone quarries, flour mills, and implement works provide the chief industries. Although the licenses have gone, there are, nevertheless, numerous good temperance hotels, and there is no difficulty in securing private boarding at reasonable rates.
My impressions of Oamaru under No-License were most favourable. “Blank Ruin” has not engulfed it; population has not deserted it; businesses have not come to grief; the rates have not been increased ; nor is there a single hotel unoccupied. Queen’s Hotel and others have been turned into shops on the ground frontages, whilst the upstairs are being used by way of accommodation for the public. Whilst I was in Oamaru the “Alliance” Hotel was sold for ,£3,880, and I was informed that the hotel’s fetching such a price was a clear sign of how T property was going up in value.
I also learnt that one of the leading business men in the town — I could give you his name —who voted for Continuance, and who was a staunch Liquor man, now says he would not take ,£5OO to see License restored. He is so satisfied with the results of No-License that in future he will support it.
At first entering the town and seeing no unemployed on the street corners, no loafing round hotels, and few people in the streets, I got the impression that trade must be very quiet here. However, on entering into conversation with several of the tradesmen, I soon found that Oamaru was in a perfectly sound condition. Some men, yho have neglected their business, and lost it through their own fault, have blamed No-License for their failure —and no doubt will find fools and Liquor champions ready to believe them.
Personally, I saw no public drunkenness in Oamaru. I visited the Mayor, Mr, R. Milligan. To my written queries, he answered as follows:
Municipal Council of Oamaru.
Town Hall, Oamaru, N.Z.,
Mayor’s Office, 26th May, 1910.
Mr Jim Harris,
Dear Sir, —In reply to your enquiries regarding the condition of things in Oamaru under No-License, and in answer to certain specific questions asked by you, I may say: _ , 'FI. _ - * ' _ a. .1 t In"-, i n • in ro/'f
ist. That there is a great deal less public drunkenness; in fact, there is very little of it. There are occasional instances, and in all probability these are almost all made up of arrivals by train from outside districts.
12
2nd. There is practically no private drunkenness. One hears of a case now and then. It must be remembered that the law allows supplies to come in for private consumption.
31 d. The “moral tone of the people generally” is excellent.
4th. Business is good, but to what extent No-License has contributed I cannot say.
Sth. The rateable value of properties has steadily increased in recent years, while the Borough rates have been reduced 3d. in the £ on the annual value. Ido not attribute this to NoHdcense, but to the general prosperity.
6lh. Accommodation for travellers is the same as before.
7th. There are no empty houses in Oamaru; it is said to be very difficult for people arriving here to get a house.
Faithfully yours,
ROBERT MILLIGAN, Mayor,
What the Oamaru Doctors Say.
(“Oamaru Mail,” May Ist, 1909).
As a result of the misleading reports furnished on their return by commissioners from Australia and elsew'here, who have paid flying visits to Oamaru, and have taken away with them a superficial knowledge of the subject, the medical men practising in Oamaru have appended their names to the following statement: —
In view of the fact that commissioners from Australia and other places visiting Oamaru to enquire into the working of No-License, appear to have formed erroneous impressions, which reflect upon the drinking habits of fhis community, we think it advisable that our united experience should be made public. We find, in making our continual visits to the homes of the people, that there is no evidence to show that drinking in homes is more prevalent now than it was in No-License times.
Our united experience shows that there is a decrease in the cases treated which result from alcoholism. We are convinced that NoLicense has been of great benefit to the community from a moral and health point of view.
(Signed) ALBERT J. GARLAND.
JAMES WHITTON. ‘
ALEXANDER DOUGLAS.
KENNETH M’ADAM,
Oamaru Under No-License. Comparative figures compiled by the staff of “North Otago Times.”
As on the previous occasion, we have not included certain offences which have no connection with the real question, and which would only burden the return. These chiefly relate to failure to destroy rabbits, breaches of borough, county, and railway by-laws, truancy, etc. Prohibition Orders issued in the last two years apply to licensed premises which, though not in the Oamaru Licensing District, are within the Oamaru Police District:—
1904-5. 1905-6. 1906-7. 1907-8. 1908-9.
Drunkenness 177 158 23 30 25
Breach of Licensing Act 22 22 1 84
Obscene Language ... 6 4 3 22
~ -t .» - Disobeying Orders ... 6 2 6 6 10
Prohibition Orders 40 38 6 4 1
Cruelty to Animals ... 6 1 22 1
C'lucuy iu rtlll nidio ... 1 ~ 1 Stone Throwing ... o 3 2 1 1
Theft ... ... ... 17 17 6 8 14
Sly-Grog ... o 22 3 16
Wilful Damage to Property ... ... 6 t 4 3 2
Carried forward ... 280 248 55 67 76
244
1904-5. 1905-6. 1906-7. 1907-8. 1908-9.
Brought forward 380 248 55 67 76
Assaults ... ... 10 5 22 3
Drunk in Charge of Horses ... ... o o 22 0
Breaking and Entering... 00104
Offensive Behaviour ... 7 8 8 3 o
Opium Cases ... ... 5 o 5 o o
Vagrancy ... 10 3 o o o
Resisting the Police ... 3 1 o o o
False Pretences and Uttering ... ... o 6 o o o
Failure to Support (inc. illegitimate children) 15 23 13 4 8
Lunacy ... ... 7 10 11 10 o
Indecency ... ... 1 1 o 1 1
Sundries ... ... 3 g 3 1 1
Totals ... ... 341 314 100 go 93
A Parliamentary return issued furnishes particulars of liquor sent into Oamaru during the two years of No-License ending 30th June, 1908. These figures reveal the fact that had License continued, the value of the drink consumed in the electorate, based upon the average amount per head for the Dominion, would have been ,£90,000. The value consumed was about ,£lB,OOO. showing a difference in two years of £72,000 —money directly saved for more profitable use —poor, ruined Oamaru!
Oamaru Under No-License (Editorial, “Oamaru Mail,” May 25, 1908)
“In regard to the effects of No-License in Oamaru, we would have been justified in saying a very great deal on the subject that would not elicit a cheer from the brewers and wine merchants. As might be expected, nothing but good has come from closing the bars. The saturnalias that one hears about now as proving the inefficiency of NoLicense only prove the efficacy of alcoholic indulgence, and no decent man or women—whether Prohibitonist or anything else —wants to see that proved any more than can be helped. The drinking of some young men as evidence of their manhood, about which they seem to fear there may be some doubt, has always been; and need not, we can assure the distressed friends of License, as well as of young men, increase public alarm.
“The drinking of young men in Oamaru is no more sinful now than it was in the days of License, and certainly not more injurious. It is not illegal to drink in Oamaru because the hotels are closed, and we shall not surely be told that it was better that men, either young or old, should be encouraged in the vice by the fact that the sale of drink has the imprimatur of the State, and therefore the public sanction. Any disreputable drinking which may exist in this district is only as the effluvium of a tallow candle which has just been extinguished. No one need fear that permanent evil will result from doing good, but no good can ever come of doing evil, and that it is evil to sanction the sale of intoxicants is dismally recorded in the life’s experiences of men, women, and children through all ages.
“Let it he understood, we have no desire to harp upon this string interminably, and we should have said nothing now were it not that unfair representations as to Oamaru’s social conditions under NoLicense demanded it. We get no more from our advocacy of NoLicense than any other member of the community—it pays better to work on the other side—but when a man has made up his mind that a. certain course is right, he should courageously pursue that course, and invite others to pursue it, whatever may betide. We want to induce those districts which join ours to adopt No-License, so that not only will they be benefited, but we may enjoy the benefits of No-Liquor instead of No-License.
245
“We have heard the enemies of Local Option express an opinion that the inhibition should be universal. That is our opinion, but we show our sincerity by accepting in instalments what we apparently cannot get in a lump. Let our friends on the other side do the same. There is no temporal question in this world so momentous as that with which we are now dealing, and there will be no rest for this country, or any other, till it has been settled.”
ASHBURTON (No-License 1902).
Ashburton, Canterbury, a borough on the Ashburton River, is 53 miles by rail south from Christchurch. It is a well-built, gas-lit town; has an extensive and beautiful domain. It is the centre of a great agricultural plain; there is nothing like a hill for 25 miles in any direction. There are a woollen factory, flour mill, and large freezing works on the outskirts. A daily and a tri-weekly paper, four banks, and the usual public offices are in evidence. The population of the town is about 2,600, with suburbs 6,000.
In 1872 Ashburton was one house with stables, a halting place for the Christchurch-Timaru coaches. A wise system of water-races has immensely improved the district, and conduced largely to the prosperity of the town and district.
Ashburton carried No-License in 1902, the voting being; Continuance, 1,734; Reduction, 2,489; No-License, 2,870. In 1905 the voting was: Restoration of Licenses, 2,663; Non-restoration, 2,458. “The explanation of this altered vote is that when Ashburton earned No-License in 1902 it had a Club several hunudreds strong, with a Club Charter authorising the sale of liquors to members. Club Charters did not then come under the popular vote, as they do now. It was known that many members of the Club helped to carry NoLicense, in order to secure the monopoly of liquor-selling in the district for their Club. When the poll came round again in 1905, and as a result of the altered law in the interval, the Club had been refused the renewal of its Charter, its members reversed their action in order to get back licenses and their Charter. The several hundred men, with those whom they could influence, were enough to secure the requisite majority for No-License in 1902, and a majority, though short of three-fifths, for License in 1905.”
The voting in 1908 was: Restoration, 3,085; Non-Restoration, 2,636. It must be remembered here that, owing to the alteration of boundaries, there have been six hotels from Geraldine added on to the Ashburton electorate before this election. The Restoration votes, however, were not sufficient to obtain Licenses. This is the single example in which the iniquitous three-fifths majority has worked to the advantage of the No-License party and of the health and sobriety of the people.
No-License Tested by Ashburton Police Returns
(The year 1903, being six months under License and six under NoLicense, is omitted for obvious reasons.)
1902. 1904.
Drunkenness ... ... ... 91 23
Excessive Drinking ... ... 26 o
Theft, etc. ... ... 28 4
Offences Against the Person 7 2
Miscellaneous ... ... ■ 36 39
Totals ... ... 188 68
Concerning these police offences under No-License, the “Ashburton Guardian,” in its leading article of February Ist, 1905, says:— “There is, however, one important fact to be pointed out, and that is that the Licensing District and the Police District are not co-extensive. . . Such places, for instance, as Methven and Chertsey, are not within the prohibited area, though they are within the Ashburton
246
County and the Police District. The result of this fact is that the total working effect of Prohibition is not revealed in the figures, since the business transacted at the local Court includes cases that have their origin in Methven and Chertsey. The criminal returns are therefore slightly better than they actually appear.”
When No-License was carried in 1902, the Ashburton Borough rates were is. in the £on the Annual Value. In the next year the rates were increased to 2s. inthe £, a fact out of which, of course, the Liquor party have made much capital. It was distinctly stated, however, in the Council at the time that the extra shilling in the £ was for the following purposes:—Loss of Hotel Licenses, 3d in the £; Interest and Sinking Fund, 3d in the £; Reduction of Overdraft, 6d in the £.
In speaking to the subject, the Mayor said that the Borough had had a is. rate for so long, that it was thought it would always do. A good many people did not know the requirements of the Borough. There were ten miles of asphalting in the Borough that required being kept in order. It was impossible to carry on the general work of the Borough on a is. rate, more especially as they had to find the interest and sinking fund for the loan out of revenue.
The 3d. increase in rates owing to No-License was, as a matter of fact, retained only two years. It is wonderful how speedily, under a No-License regime, finances adjust themselves to the altered circumstances.
No-License in Ashburton as Tested by the Report of its Building Society.
Table Giving the Society's Business for the 10 Years Ending 31st January, 1910.
Loans Out at End New Loans During
Year. of Year. Year. Deposits
£ £ £
1901 62,398 14,549 42,102
1902 69,154 21,774 45,775
1903 68,720 14,927 45,533
1904 73,587 19,734 52,223
1905 80,823 15,790 54,366
1906 81,498 15,994 57,235
1907 99,252 3i,340 72,563
1908 111,884 35,109 78,887
1909 116,762 14,412 83,243
igio 100,621 12,509 69,863
Averages 86,469 19,213 60,179
The Chairman said: “Referring to the figures in the BalanceSheet, they would see that there had been a very considerable reduction in the Society’s business, this being largely due to the fact that considerable loans had been paid off.”
What a deplorable state these Ashburtonites are in! They can pay off their loans! Out upon these Temperance fanatics 1 Give us back our liberty, our liquor, and our Debts!
A Straw Shows the Way the Wind Blows.
At the monthly meeting of the Ashburton Hospital Committee, held 6th March, 1908, the Secretary reported that £330 had been paid by way of fees since April Ist, 1907. This was the highest sum that had been paid in the time specified in the history of the Hospital! Comment is superfluous.
Prohibition Orders (Ashburton).
1902 ... ... ... 42 (License)
1909 ... ... ... 2 (No-License)
A Candid Opinion.
The Rev, E. Whitehouse, vicar of St, Stephen’s, Ashburton, in an address at Lower Hutt, July 3rd, 1908, said that, previous to No-
247
License coming in, he had stood aloof, because he could not see the righteousness of it, but he believed now that a man who had held a valuable monopoly for a length of time had been fully compensated already, and the hotels had been fully paid for the value of the service rendered to the public. Ashburton was a tow'n of about 6,000 inhabitants, and it had six hotels and a club when he first came, and there was the same loafing about the public-house, the same disgusting scenes, the same temptations to the boys, and the same liability to insult as in other towns; but he was pleased to say the town was quite clean now, and, in fact, he believed one of the cleanest in New Zealand. It was in a flourishing condition. The publicans thought they were ruined, but he was pleased to say the hotels had all fetched their price, and were now prosperous shops, offices, and private hotels, which were well conducted, and financially sound. The Club kept up its membership, and some businesses had doubled since No-License came in. The co-operative stores had increased from 1633,000 in iqoa to £60,000 in IQO7. He did not lay too much stress on that side. Give the people character, said Mr. Whitehouse, and they will get money. The growth of the Temperance sentiment had been very marked. He was President of the Football and numerous Social Clubs, and had attended the smoke concerts and socials both before No-License came in and since, and he could safely say the practice of drinking was fast dying out. He thanked God for No-License, and he intended to do his best to keep it, and to extend the bounds of its influence.
When in Ashburton, I visited Mr. Whitehouse and asked him if the above statement was correct as having been stated by himself. He answered, “Every word of it is true.”
My impressions of Ashburton under No-License were most gratifying. I saw no public drunkenness there. Saturday, when the farmers come to town, is the busiest day, and it is notable that all business transacted in Ashburton is conducted by a sober community. The farmers are no longer subjected to the temptations of the open bar. Under License many of them never knew when they would reach home; now they do their business and go straight home. In many cases, during my three weeks’ stay, I noticed the farmers watching the traps outside the shops while their wives were inside shopping. In License days it was very often the women who watched the traps for weary hours outside the pubs.
Mr. John Foster Fraser put in one day at Ashburton; I spent three weeks there, and my impressions should be of more depth and correctness than those of that very impressionable journalist. John Foster Fraser said: “I saw more drunkenness in No-License than in License districts.” I challenge anyone to visit No-License districts as I did and say the same as he did. If they do, I brand them as champion liars. I saw only one drunk in three weeks; moreover, the testimonies of reliable men of the town are worth more than the irresponsible utterances of John Foster Fraser.
When conversing with residents, none of whom knew what side I was on, I received unbiassed opinions. Mr. . Town Clerk, said: “There is no public drunkenness, and there are far fewer criminal convictions in every respect since the advent of No-License. The town is prosperous; a considerable number of new buildings have been erected, and property has gone up in value.”
vi vv,iv,u, Jr r V • r “r , , Mr , Clerk of the Court, said: “I hold my own opinion as to either side. I please myself as to whether I take a glas? of whisky or not. But I contend that No-License has done good to many people. Crimes are less under No-License, and there is no public drunkenness in Ashburton, Tn fact, the people here are getting: to be less drinkers every year. It is a quiet town, and pleasant to live in. As regard? sly-grog selling, T defy any man in New Zealand to prove that one
248
single hotel now closed is selling liquor. There are from six to etgm sly-grog shops in Ashburton, but they are doing so little that it is hard to get at them. And it is only a matter of time when all sly-grog shops will have vanished completely.”
Plain-clothes Constable remarked to me: “After four years of experience in Ashburton, I ought to know as much as any man here what is done in the shape of sly-grog selling. And I assure you that very little of it is done in the places that are called sly-grog shops.”
How does John Foster Fraser’s statement shine alongside of the above statements? I leave my readers to judge for themselves.
The Minister for Justice on the Subject.
The following letter has been received by Mr. J. McCoombs, Sec retary of the Christchurch Prohibition League:—
Department of Justice, Wellington, March 15th, 1910.
Sir, —Referring again to your letter of 4th March instant, I have to inform you that I have read the article on Prohibition in Ashburton, published in the Christchurch “Press,” and am strongly of opinion that it was specially written with the object of showing that Prohibition was a failure, and that the writer has drawn upon his imagination for his facts. As you are aware, the Ashburton police are most energetic in their efforts to stamp out sly-grog selling, and the statements made in the article to the effect that the writer, a perfect stranger, could obtain liquor in the manner described are, to my mind, absolutely ridiculous, and unworthy of any serious notice. I direct your attention to the view of another Australian visitor, published in the “Ashburton Guardian” of February 12th, 1910. —I have the honour to be Sir, your most obedient servant, J. G. FINDLAY.
As Ashburton is more especially referred to in the following article, which appeared in “The Lyttelton Times” for February rath, igio, I insert it here, calling special attention to the remarks on slygrog selling:—
Mr. J. B. Donkin, who has resided at Lachlan Falls, in the interior of New South Wales, for the past thirty years, is at present on a motor-car tour through New Zealand, and he has been greatly impressed by what he has already seen in the South Island. He told a reporter that though he had been to Dunedin and the Southern Lakes, he considered that Christchurch was thoroughly peaceful, home-like, and tranquil, and he had decided to stay here for a considerable period.
After describing in glowing terms the beauties of the glacial region, and the excellence of the motoring roads, with their handy and inexpensive bridges, Mr Donkin, who frankly confessed that he held brewing shares, went on to speak of what he had seen of the beneficial effects of Prohibition in the No-License districts through which he had passed. “I have been very much struck,” he said, “by the exceedingly comfortable appearance and the prosperous air which marked the farm houses in the Ashburton district. I consider that the farming community in this country has an asset in its wealthy soil, which makes the national debt appear as a mere flea-bite.”
He said that before coming to New Zealand he had heard a lot about poor accommodation in Prohibition towns, but from actual experience he must say that in all the No-License towns through which he passed the accommodation was equal, if not superior, to the best of that in the License towns. He was not a Prohibitionist, he might say, but a fair thing was a fair thing. At Milton and Gore, especially, the accommodation was excellent, and immeasurably ahead of what he had been led to expect. The hotels there were comfortable, commodious, well catered for, and clean, which was much more than could be said for many a big town hotel in which he had stayed.
v-uuiu i jxz >«i iki an ixxnuv ux>i iuwii auici xxx vwixl.ii m, uau Mr. Donkin said that he had seen an article in a recent issue of the Sydney “Daily Telegraph,” in which the correspondent stated that he had been able to obtain drink in Ashburton by the glass or by the
i 8
bottle; but though he had himself tried his hardest to obtain drink in that district, for the sake of the experiment, he had failed utterly, and an inspection of the charge-sheet of the Police Court showed only too clearly what Prohibition had done for the district. Farmers all along the road told him that they had made up their minds that the place was better without drink, and many had admitted that the “shouting” system and companionship on market days had led to heavy drinking. He had been struck by the fact that so wealthy a district as Ashburton had been one of the first to recognise the undoubted benefits of No-License. People had said there was a shortage of labour, but that was merely due to the fact that men now’adays were able to save money and go upon the land for themselves, instead of having to work for other farmers. It was drink that kept the labour market supplied with a large proportion of casual labour, and licensed houses had a great deal to do with the downfall of the labouring man.
Mr. Donkin added that in Australia he had noticed that the trend of education and the higher trend of the moral tone of the people had reduced drinking to places where people were thickly congested, and that it was gradually but surely being swept out of country districts. Shearers no longer “knocked down” their cheques, but in most instances were sensible enough to save their money. The fact had been borne in upon him more than ever by his visit to the No-License areas of New Zealand, which, he said, had done a great deal towards the solution of the problem of excessive liquor consumption.
GREY LYNN (NO-License 1905).
This suburban borough of Auckland has a population of about .7,000. I lived for 13 months in Grey Lynn, and during the whole of (bat time saw only three men somewhat under the influence of drink. I worked in the city, and often came home late at night, so had good opportunities of seeing drunkenness, if it existed. Several people remarked to me that close as Auckland was to Grey Lynn, it was evident (bat the people of the latter place respected their own No-License vote.
Personally, I was very well satisfied with my conditions as a resident of Grey Lynn, but I made further inquiries as to the working of No-License there. I found that Mr. W. J. McDermott, Secretary to the Auckland Alliance, had been compiling information re Grey Lynn, since confirmed (“N.Z. Herald,” July 28, 1910) by the Mayor (Mr. W. J. Holdsworth) and eight Councillors.. I therefore publish the substance of Mr. McDermott’s report. Its information is absolutely reliable: —
(a) The unimproved value of the Borough increased from £276,588 in March, 1906, to £381,740 in March, 1910, an increase of £105,152, nearlv 40 per cent.
(b) During those four years over 400 buildings have been erected witliin the Borough. These probably average £4OO in value. Thirty new shops have also gone up.
(c) The Council is now spending about .£45,000 on drainage, etc.
(d) The Tramways Company has extended its line further into the district.
(e) Land values in Grey Lynn have increased enormously, not decreased.
(f) 70 per cent, of the houses in Grey Lynn are owned by the occupants. This on the authority of Mr. Myers, the brewer, who was Mayor of Auckland.
(g) 71 per cent, of voters voted against Restoration at last poll, this representing a gain of 1,650 No-License votes.
(hj) Eden, an adjoining electorate, induced by the success of NoLicense in Grey Lynn, “went dry” at last election.
(i) Auckland City West, also adjoining-, secured a majority of 312 •votes over the necessary three-fifths, but being attached to other City
250
Electorates, the vote was ineffective, but it is an admirable testimony to the value of No-License as it appears to those living just outside the boundaries of a No-License electorate.
MASTERTON (NO-License 1908).
Masterton, at the head of the Wairarapa Valley, 67 miles from Wellington, is the chief town of that fine agricultural and pastoral district. It has the usual Government offices, branch banks, etc., to be found in a large country town, and also a fine Hospital. Water and drainage works have been completed. The population, including suburbs, is about 6,000.
I stayed the first night in Neilson’s Boarding-house, the proprietor of which had recently been fined for sly-grog selling. I saw no liquor sold. During a chat I had with the proprietor before retiring, he said that the town was fast being ruined. I said, “How is that?’
“They’ve carried No-License here,” replied he.
“Then No-License is no good here in Masterton,” said I.
“No,” said he, “and never will be. There are from three to four hundred empty houses here since the advent of No-License. 1 here were six hotels closed in Masterton, four in Eketahuna, and fifteen in the whole of the Masterton electorate. The town is now dead, and no life whatever in it.”
“Well,” said I. “Pm a stranger here, but Pll have a look at your town in the morning.” , . « . 1 • r . * T .1 .1 .„1 I . « .... fI. 3il r \mlcAn c
Let us see how the information I gathered tallies with Mr Neilson s statements. I enquired from reliable authorities the number ot empty houses in Masterton, and was told “between 60 and 70. Before NoLicense was carried there were between 70 and 80. About 12 new houses had gone up during the 12 months of No-License. So, judging bv that, the people had not left the town because of No-License.
My own impressions of Masterton were very favourable. On the Saturday, the busiest day of the week, I saw no drunkenness. One night through the week I saw one man under the influence of alcohol. He was a rabbiter in town for a holiday, and boarded-—at Neilson s. .1 _ 4..* 4-,-. rflinUrofo anniversary
At the commemoration meeting to celebrate the first anniversary of the operation of No-License, held in the Town Hall, 30th June* iqio, Mr. Bridges, organiser for the Wairarapa, stated that he had called on most of the business men of the town, with a view to ascertaining their opinion of No-License after their year s experience. Altogether he had interviewed 126 people, of whom 112 had replied, and 14 had refused to reply. The questions he asked and their answers were as follow :
1. What effect has No-License had on your business ?
Answer.—B2 favourable, 16 indefinite. 14 unfavourable. Thirteen of the indefinite ones, however, had either just taken over a new business, or the businesses were under a new management.
2. Has business generally suffered?
Answer. —76 favourable, 15 indefinite, 17 unfavourable. 4 did not Te P ] y- , , ui;^
3. What effect has No-License had on the public order and general moral tone? _ , . ,
Answer: 105 favourable, 6 indefinite, while one solitary reply was unfavourable. . , .
4. Would it, in your opinion, be in the best interests of the tovn to have License restored? ~ . „ „ . .• . e . i.: - S-7 00-mnct rp<;tnraflon.
Answer.—l2 for restoration, 5 indefinite, 87 against restoration, while 8 did not reply. . . , , . f ... . . 1 t oc thp conitinn or tne
5. Would you recommend No-License as the solution or tne Liquor problem ? nf n-bom 17 were for
Answer. —72 favourable, 34 unfavourable, or wnom 17 were ror Total Prohibition, 3 indefinite, 3 gave no reply.
251
Mr, Bridges gave the Court returns for the last two years
Year ending June 30, 1909.
Year ending June 30, 1910.
(License). (No-License).
Drunkenness ... ... ... 287 41*
Vagrancy ... ... ... ... 25 2
... ... ... ... o 2 Obscene Language ... ... ... 21 2
Theft ... ... ... ... 44 8
Indecency ... ... ... ... 3 o
Malicious Injury to Property ... ... 5 1
j j 1 j j » Obstructing or Resisting Police ... 12 2
Total Convictions ... ... 397 56
Is comment on this needed ?
*Of these 41 cases, 26 came into the town drunk by train, the remaining 15 were local.
During the year ending June 30th, 1909, there were 61 casual and accident cases in the Masterton Hospital; for the next year only 36 cases of the same class had been treated. The population of the Hospital had gone down. (Applause.)
In the course of some remarks at the same meeting, Mr. J. McGregor, senr., mentioned two points with special emphasis. Firstly, the young men were no longer in such dire danger from temptation; that has been removed. Secondly, the Maoris, who had usually given such beastly exhibitions of intemperance at the close of the shearing season, were now unable to do so. On one occasion recently he had given a ride to a Maori who used to work for him.
“How are you getting on?” Mr. McGregor asked.
‘■'Kapai,” was the reply
“But there is no beer now. How are you getting on without beer?”
UUI UIVIV> 1C 110 UU « . UP" C »UU Oil » Uiiout ut' “Kapai,” was the reply again. “No beer, but plenty kai.”
'Extraordinary Effect of No-License on Crime in Masterton.
1908.
Convictions During Last Complete Year of License.
1910.
Convictions During First Complete Year of No-License.
Indecent Assault ... ... o 1
Common Assault ... ... 12 o
Attempted Suicide ... ... 2 1
Arson ... ... ... o 3
Burglary ... ... ... 7 o
Forgery ... ... ... 9 t
Theft ... ... ... 69 3
Obscene Language ... ... 21 o
Indecent Exposure ... ... 4 o
Vagrancy ... .. ... 24 o
Drunkenness ... ... 302 39
Disorderly Conduct ... ... 15 o
Breach of Peace ... ... 9 o
Sly-Grog Selling ... ... o 4
Breach of Licensing Law ... o 14
Totals ... ■■■ 474 66
WAIHI (No-License 1908).
Waihi, on the Ohinemuri River, is the chief town of the “dry” OKinemuri district, and is known throughout the Dominion for its famous gold mines, practically the sole support of the place. A small brick-making plant and three small sawmills supply local needs. As No-License came into operation on July ist, 1909, it has had just over
*These figures received and inserted while book in printer’s hands.—Ed
21
12 months trial. Since its advent in Waihi much has been said for and against it. Because of these discussions, 1 was anxious to make personal investigation, and see for myself how much of a failure Waihi is under Xo-License. While there, 1 discussed the subject with many people, and found that opponents laid stress on three special points, which I deal with as follows:
11 (?) Sly-Crog Selling. There is sly-grog selling going on at Waihi, but 1 am prepared to state that there is not so much sly-grog in Waihi in one week as there was grog sold on a Saturday in one of the hotels under License. A house was shown to me as a “notorious slvfrog shop.” I had occasion to pass the house several times a day uring the fortnight I spent in Waihi, and also passed it several times at night time. During mat whole fortnight I saw not one single soul entering or leaving the place. Yet this was a “notorious sly-grog shop. It may have been once, but since the big raid made about last Christmas, sly-grog shops are now scarce, and selling is done with such care that there cannot be as much of it as some would have one believe. And I contend that No-License is not to blame for what selling there is. In time sly-grog will become as extinct in V\aihi as it is in Balclutha. Men without respect for themselves or tor others will do their utmost to encourage sly-grog selling in order to make Xo-License look like a failure; and some brewers and wholesale liquor dealers are not free from suspicion of blame in the matter
V r* . suspiLiuu ui uicuuie in me in acre r. (b) Drink going into homes into which it did not go under License. To test the accuracy of this statement one would need to investigate the private life of every home in Waihi, a test I for one do not care about tackling. But during my inquiries I concluded that more homes have been freed from liquor that had it under License than, being free from it under License, have it now under Nn-T iren^e
X ® llum JL uiiuci license, nave 11 now unaer iNo-License. A gentleman who used the home-drinking argument as a strong indictment of No-License, under pressure said he knew of two homes, but no more, into which drink now went into which he was positive it did not go under License—the people were relatives of his. He could not point to any home that did not now have liquor whereas it had liquor under License, but he had not taken any trouble to ascertain facts. Many others to whom I spoke had a quite different tale to tell of the numbers of homes now free from drink that under License were cursed with it. This “home-drinking” argument is worthless.
/ v miuiq-uiiiiMiig digumcm Jb wunmess. (c) Slackness of business consequent on No-License. To test this I submitted questions to manv business men of Waihi, and give the results here :— *
1. What effect has No-License had upon your business?
■ mvoujv imu U|>Ull 1 WUI UUOIIU Answer.— 47 favourable, 8 unfavourable, 5 indefinite.
2. Do you think business generally has suffered from No-License ?
Answer.— 44 favourable to No-License, 12 unfavourable. 3 indefinite.
3. What effect has No-License had on public order and moral tone?
Answer. —47 favourable, 10 unfavourable, 2 indefinite.
4. Would it be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored?
Answer.—n for restoration, 46 against restoration, 3 indefinite.
- ' »v* * IVOO'ilUlOll, 111 VIV, lllli IV, 3. Would you recommend No-License as the solution of the Liquor problem ?
Answer.— 29 favourable, 15 for Total Prohibition, 1 for Dominion No-License, 13 unfavourable, 1 indefinite.
For various reasons 12 refused to supply written answers, but •several of them verbally stated that their businesses had not decreased since the Advent of No-License.
*These results I have sworn to by affidavit, made before James /A. Thomson, J.P., and G. J. Lawlor, J.P., at Waihi, August 22, 1910.
253
A business man of Waihi showed me by his books that his cash sales for the year ending March 31st, 1910, had increased by £322 on the previous year. Since that date each month had shown a substantial increase on the corresponding month of 1909, and the present mouth (August, 1910), with eight business days still to go, showed an increase of £25 on August, 1909. His book debts amounted to £22 1 is in all!
Another business man proved to me by his books that his-business had increased by 25 per cent, since the advent of No-License.
Yet another said: “My business has improved to the extent of 40 per cent, during the 12 months of No-License, and there are prospects of still greater improvement.”
Another said: “Business has increased beyond expectations.” P *ll _ x 1 . CC C 1 NT /x T « /xnn n A Lor mm A 1 t /"V T 11*0 nOl PA
Still another; “Since No-License has come into force we have experienced a great increase in cash,sales.”
Another: “A record year for us from all standpoints.”
And so on.
Waihi’s Crime Record.
Jan. Ito June 30, 1909. July Ito Dec. 31, 1909.
Drunkenness ... ••• 23 n*
Assault, etc. ... ... 2 0
Illegally on Licen’d Premises 6 o
Indecency ... ... ■■■ 1 0
Obscene Language ... 4 1
Offensive Behaviour on Railway Car ... o 3t
Prohibition Orders ■■■ 7
Breaches Prohibition Orders 9 4 xr. Xt ~r c I o
No Means of Support ... 1 o . . . .1 r- • j _ 1 n
Attempted Suicide ... ... 1 0
Theft, etc. 4 4 ~ » -»T
Misappropriation . ■■■ 0 I2 *
Escaping Custody .. 0 1
Distillation 2
Totals ... 60 . 36
1 oiais ••• ••• , w . . T . •Eight of these were arrested returning from Licensed areas, soonly three are chargeable gainst Waihi , • *1 in a rail wav rarnacp returning irom
' tThese three offences were in a railway carriage returning irom Licensed areas. -- mmmitted durintr Licensed period, but
JThese 12 offences were committed during Licensea penou, tried during No-License period. T ...
Thus the Totals should really read 72 and 13! Is not this an extraordinary drop? Surely No-License can fairly take some of the-
credit! NO LICENSE IN RELATION TO THE TOURIST TRAFFIC GENERALLY.
The Hon Thos. Mackenzie, speaking in public in April, 1910, said- “There has been a late irresponsible utterance in New South Wales by the champion of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, whosaid that the tourist traffic to New Zealand had gone down 60 per cent. This is not a fact, as the tourist traffic over all routes has increased, and last year the revenue of the Department was £5,000 Skater than the nrevious vear.” Later in the month, speaking at Brighton he saidto an audience assembled at a non-alcoholic banquet: I have an object-lesson before me in this contented, happy, and well-dressed audience that Prohibition in New Zealand has not wiped out happiness. as is claimed by the Chairman of the Licensed Victuallers in Sydne). as is ciaim y rtotod ■ “T Invn fn-Hnv re-
In a telegram Mr. Mackenzie stated : “I have to-day received returns from Glade House for the year, which show an increase over an» previous season
23
IS NO-LICENSE A SUCCESS?
Nine Mayors and Members of Parliament for No-License districts say it is.
In May last a cablegram from Brisbane announced the return of Mr. Lesina,, a member of the Queensland Assembly, from a visit toNew Zealand. In an interview, he declared that the New Zealand Liquor laws encouraged sly-grog selling, that drunkenness was increasing, and that perjury and corruption had also increased in a remarkable way. Lunacy had developed to a remarkable extent, and there was a general disrespect for the law itself. The introduction of liquor into dry districts was steadily increasing. Blackmail, terrorism, and boycott were flourishing.
Naturally the No-License party in New Zealand took strong exception to the above statements, and have taken steps to secure a refutation of them. The following statement is self-explanatory;—
“We, the undersigned; being Mayors or Members of the House of Representatives for towns' or electorates under No-License in New Zealand, desire, on behalf of our respective towns or districts, toemphatically contradict the statements attributed to Mr. Lesina in a cable message published in the New Zealand Press on May 12 and 13,. IQO9. Mr. Lesina, who is stated to have just visited New Zealand, is quoted in the cable message referred to as saying:
\jUV.VU 111 V. VUUIU IVIVIIVU c»o oaj lllg . “(a) ‘The New Zealand liquor laws encouraged sly-grog selling.’
“Answer. —There is no law in New Zealand that encourages slygrog selling. The police in the district we severally represent do their utmost to suppress it. Any sly-grog selling that exists is on such a small scale and to such safe buyers that the police find it difficult to obtain evidence of a sale at ali.
“(b) ‘That drunkenness is increasing.’
“Answer. —As regards the No-License districts with which we are respectively connected, the statement is absolutely false. Drunkenness is now comparatively rare in our towns and districts.
“(c) ‘That perjury and corruption had increased in a remarkable way.’
“Answer. —It is utterly false to say that perjury and corruption are any worse in No-License districts than in Licensed districts.
u» n ui jv iu . » uuii iiiuu iu jjicv/uovw : (d) ‘Lunacy has developed to an alarming extent.
“Answer.—To infer that No-License has been followed by an increase of lunacy is the verv summit of absurdity.
IUUCdSC IUII4C> IS me VCl> SUIXILUIU U1 dUSUIUU). “(e) ‘The introduction of liquor into “dry” areas is steadily increasing.’
“Answer.—There is no evidence whatever of this, and we believe it to be untrue.
“(f) ‘Blackmail, terrorism, and the boycott are flourishing.'
1 CVV, tvill CX I 1 . tLUUUem, CtllU tliv. UUJCUU an- xiwunomug . “Answer. —This charge is also without foundation in fact.
“The whole statement may, in short, be classed as absurd. Our No-License towns are at least as peaceful, and our people as honourable, as is the case in any License town either in the Dominion of New Zealand or elsewhere.
“(Signed)
“JAMES ANDERSON, M.P. for Mataura Electorate
“WILLIAM BAKER. acting-Mayor of Gore
“ANDREW BALNEAVES, Mayor of Mataura.
“CHARLES LONGUET, Mayor of Invercargill.
“ROBERT MILLIGAN, Mayor of Oamaru.
“ALEXANDER S. MALCOLM, M.P., Clutha.
“JOHN MILLER, Chairman Town Board, Wyndham.
j vymi v/iiaiiiuau i oiwi i/wulu, '' J ‘ “GEORGE JONES (Hon.), M.L.C., Oamaru.”
Also endorsed unanimously by a public meeting of 800 citizens at Ashburton, the Mayor in the chair.
24
POSTSCRIPT.
Having covered most of the ground in nearly all the No-License districts as far as time permitted, I have, I believe, proved conclusively by the evidence adduced the beneficence of No-License wherever tried. I suggest to, nay, J urge upon the Thames electors, and the electors of the whole Dominion, that they follow the lead so splendidly given; that they be not satisfied to see others going steadily up the hill of prosperity without making a special effort to join the upward march also.
It is with the object of directing the attention of our electors to the actual working of No-License in our midst, tried by New Zealanders themselves, and not found wanting, that I have written this little book.
It would be idle to deny that I have strong convictions on the subject under discussion, or that I have any doubt in my own mind as to where the truth of the matter lies. I believe that our drinking customs are a huge blunder, an expensive mistake, a constant drain upon our national resources, a serious check upon our commercial prosperity, and a menace to our physical and moral health. At the same time, I have taken every care to state facts fairly and accurately, to take nothing for granted where personal inquiry was possible, and to present the case in a manner no reasonable man need object to. 11 11 - _ rtf it. M rt fVTrtTT Lrt i t i fl, rt trn t nt not ot'Ant n oriQrtt
Whatever our convictions may be, it is the truth that every honest inquirer desires to arrive at, and this book is an attempt to show what some of the facts are, and what lesson we ought to derive from them. Surely the lesson is that, freed from the curse of the open bar, with its open temptation to drink and to form bad habits, a district is altogether more prosperous than before its freedom came.
“Side by side with the Liquor Traffic stand Poverty, Brutality, and Domestic Degradation, Crime, Ignorance, and Disease ; and, heaped around as spoils, are defected sanitary measures, and frustrated political rights, and fragments of philanthropic plans; beyond, clouds and darkness. But side by side with Prohibition what have we? Health and Wealth, Social Order and Domestic Concord, Art and Knowledge, directed by noble aims and hopeful endeavours towards the illuminated pathway of the future.” t-» • 11 I'l _ a*, - 1 rtf wt rt rt rt it of. ft, /\ ri 1a ii*n a a t*a
Finally, to my Thames friends let me say. as to a people who are anxious to know the truth about the working of No-License, and anxious also to do the right, that when you have given the subject a fair and reasonable study, you will vote No-License at the coming election, and wipe out the 37* liquor bars in our electorate.
I have the honour to be.
Yours in the war against the Liquor Traffic,
JIM HARRIS,
Karaka Creek, Thames.
December, 1910
*One hotel has since lost its license. —Ed.
Wright A Carman, 14€. Feather**** Street % Wellington .
RESULTS of NO-LICENSE IN INVERCARGILL
1906-1911.
TOWN HALL, INVERCARGILL
OPENED 1906—THE YEAR THAT NO-LICENSE CAME INTO OPERATION
By REV. JAMES BAIRD, INVERCARGILL
Published by THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC - - 113 Willis St., Wellington
bankshear, Printer, Lambton Quay, Wellington
All buildings shown in this pamphlet have been completed since No-License was carried, save three, which are now in course of construction.
Results of in Invercargill.
1906-1911.
INTRODUCTION.
Facts have been laid before the public from time to time, showing the improved state of our town since the advent of No-License, but we feel called upon once more, in view of the approaching Poll, to renew our protest against the unfounded reports which are constantly circulated by the Liquor party, as well as to set forth the advantages of closing the drinking bars. In order to arrive at a fair and just
estimate of the value of No-License, we should be careful to adduce only those facts which bear on the point at issue. Sometimes increased prosperity has been attributed to the good effects of temperance reform. when, perhaps, it might be equally well traced to other cause*. There is nothing gained by this, and it is plainly unwise. Besides, it is unnecessary to do so. No-License can give an excellent account of itself, and has many strong facts standing to its credit.
But, to judge fairly of what might reasonably be expected from the introduction of the new reform into our social life, we must bear in mind the nature of the traffic to be dealt with, the personal interests involved, the fierce opposition of the liquor-sellers, the liquor habit acquired by many in the community, and the persistent misrepresentations which are circulated throughout the Dominion. The object of these unfounded reports is to discredit the reform movement, and to prejudice the public mind against it.
1
Those who live in Invercargill can testify to the unquestioned value of No-License. They saw the evil effects of the drinking-ban in the days of License, and now witness the indisputable improvement in the ,'ocial condition of the town. Strangers sometimes visit the town
for a few hours, and fancy they have more knowledge than those whoi live here, and go away and circulate false reports as to the working of No-License. Reports frequently reach us from other provinces or the Dominion and other colonial States, calling attention to wild stories adverse to the No-License reform. This is no surprise to us, as we are familiar with the most unscrupulous tactics of “the Trade” from the hour the new condition of things was established. It is the experience of every No-License electorate. It has to run the gauntlet. Every district is assailed, and roundly abused, and all sorts of evils attributed to it. People at a distance are much perplexed, and write for information to those who live on the spot.
A judge, by taking bribes, disqualifies himself from giving a righteous judgment. “A gift hlinds the eyes.” And, on the same principle, a man engaged in the business of selling strong drink, disqualifies himself by self-interest from giving an unbiassed opinion. The social reformer has nothing personal to gain, unless it is the gratification of seeing the welfare of his fellowmen promoted.
What would be considered evidence of the town’s commercial prosperity? What would be proof of social advancement? What would be testimony of moral uplift?
The liquor prophets told us of gloomy forebodings, and assured us of disaster which would befall our good town whenever the reign of No-License began They prophesied that property, in general, would drop in value, hotel property would be a drug in the market, wool sales would be no longer known here, stock sales would desert us. farmers would pass us by and do their business elsewhere, the popular shows of the city would get a wide berth; and we had even become familiar with the doleful cry that grass would be seen growing in our broad streets. It is a pleasant relief to think that none of these
2
calamities have overtaken Invercargill. Anyone who says so would trample facts under his feet. Carlyle says that a fact can stand against a world of talk and loud assertion. And the poet says, “Facts cannot be disputed.” But drinksellers are blinded by prejudice and selfinterest ; they live in a fool’s paradise; and, we have sad experience, that they circulate the most unscrupulous statements against this reform movement, and in the face of clear facts.
Let us now see what facts have to say in favour of the new order of things in Invercargill.
HOTEL PROPERTY.
We take hotel property first. No-License began on June 30th, 1906. There were 17 hotels. The valuation rolls recently were opened for inspection to all ratepayers. The following figures are taken from them, so the comparison is between the roll of 1904, and the roll which gives the present value (the roll which should have come into force in 1909 was withdrawn, in consequence of many objections offered).
Well, according to the Municipal Rate Book of 1904, the capital value of these 17 hotels amounted to £65,543, whilst the value now <1911) stands at £89,345. These figures from the valuation roll show the substantial and gratifying increase during the No-License period of nearly 36f per cent. We don’t assert, of course, that all this improvement in values is due to No-License. However, had there been a drop in values of £23,802, instead of a rise to that amount, the blame, for certain, would have been laid at the door of the new reform.
But liquor dealers told us to weariness that this class of property would become unsaleable, and a dead loss. In spite, however, of the heavy tidings which were constantly dinned into our ears, the pendulum has decidedly swung the other way; and, surely, in all conscience, a
rise in the aggregate value of 36J per cent, on these properties, is good enough to satisfy any reasonable man. Some of this prosperity may be due to expenditure of capital. That may be. But men of business, who put two and two together, do not invest their money
3
in a town doomed to decay, or moribund, or in a sinking ship. These were some of the expressive figures of speech employed by liquor advocates to picture to our fancy the unhappy fate of Invercargill when the drinking-bars would be shut up in June, 1906.
Here in this connection it may be mentioned that, even three years ago, hotel properties under No-License brought into the corporation exchequer the sum of £642 for rates ; while, under License, the rates from these properties amounted to only £6X2. But now, with a rise in value of 361 per cent., there must be a much larger return in favour of the No-License period. Though temperance advocates were always sure of their ground, they can now point, in face of the dark forecasts of brewers and publicans, to the assuring fact that the aggregate values of all the hotel properties are £23,802 greater than under the last year of License. Anyone can check the figures.
Further, it may be added, that legitimate hotel-keeping in this year of grace, is very far from being a dead or a dying concern. The Supreme Court Hotel, Tay Street, is at present being enlarged to the
extent of 40 bedrooms, with a row of shops underneath, facing Kelvin Street. The Grand Hotel is now being erected on the site of the old Prince of AVales Hotel, Dee Street. It is to be a spacious building, four stories high, fitted up in luxurious style, and supplied with all modern conveniences. The cost, it is said, will run into five figures. The ground rent is £365 per annum. Not long after No-License came into vogue the Railway Hotel had an addition of fourteen rooms, and the Criterion was enlarged to the extent of thirteen rooms. These are the best assurances that alcoholic liquors are not necessary, even to the growth and prosperity of proper hotel business.
TOWN PROPERTY.
Another evidence of the commercial soundness of Invercargill is the large and increasing expenditure on th© erection of buildings During the four years, 1906-1910, the average for each year was
4
£41,446. But, in the year ending March 31st, 1911, the permits granted for buildings covered the large sum of £62,271. At a public meeting, his Worship the Mayor stated, “that it had been estimated that, for this year, £lOO,OOO worth of buildings would be erected in Invercargill; and that estimate was going to be realised.” The report of the town engineer for the past four months has been sent to the council. It shows that the words of the Mayor will be more than fulfilled, if the same rate of increase is maintained. The engineer writes, August 10th, 1911: —“1 beg to report that, during the past four months (Ist April to 31st July), 61 applications were made for new buildings to be erected within the borough, representing a total value of £39,876. . . For the same period of last year ... 40 permits were issued, representing ... a value of £22,786. An increase this year over last of £17,090 for the four months.” This is a decided leap, and, if it continues, the total for the vear will be well over £lOO,OOO.
In this connection it is interesting to note that a general survey
' of the town discloses the important fact that the rise in property values is confined to no one part, but is spread, more or less, over the whole electorate. In 1905, when No-License was carried, the capital value of Invercargill stood at £1,989,289, but, since that year, the growth has been quite marked, and the roll shows the value at the present time to be £2,357,119. The unimproved value during these years has taken a decided leap upward, advancing from £738,525 in 1905 to £1,079,572 in 1911,
TOWN IMPROVEMENTS
The city councillors have evidently unbounded confidence in the town whose affairs they manage; for, lately, they inaugurated an up-to-date tramway system, which involves an expenditure of £75,000. Besides, the rapid expansion of the city has necessitated that other works of an important nature should be taken in hand. So such works and improvements have been authorised to the extent of £52,000.
5
Further, the Municipal Council has resolved, after having all the facts and figures placed before it, to undertake a large scheme to supply the citizens with abundance of wholesome, pure water. The cost of this huge work, along with sanitation, according to the engineer’s estimate
is not likely bo fall much below £100,000; but the councillors have unanimously agreed to submit the scheme to a plebiscite of the ratepayers.
With such manifest signs of progress all over the tow-n, it could not be expected that the same number of the corporation’s employees could discharge the increasing work of the city. Six years ago, no fewer than 80 were employed, but during these years of steady expansion, it has been found necessary to add 45 additional workers to the staff. So, the number on the town’s pay-sheet is 125. But that was not all. The council found the general condition of the town’s finances in such a satisfactory state as to warrant it in giving the workmen a rise in their wages. So that we have not on 1y 45 extra workmen, but also a higher scale of wages.
Since last Poll, not a few handsome business premises have been erected, which have added much to the architectural appearance and substantial business look of the town. As illustrations, the following may be referred to:—Ward’s block of buildings. Mitchell’s, and Reid and Gray’s, in Dee Street ; Edmond’s large premises, H. and J. Smith, in Tay Street; Rattray and Son’s wholesale premises in Spev Street’ All over the town numerous private residences and villas show the taste and prosperous circumstances of the citizens.
Ihe belief that the town will continue to go ahead is by no means a parochial feeling. Outside merchants have from time to time shown their faith in the commercial soundness and prospective growth of Invercargill. by extending their business to it, as a thriving centre. Aa proofs of this, we may mention the names of the well-known firms of Messrs. Scoular and Chisholm, Wilkie and Co., and Rattray and Son, all of Dunedin. The last of these firms has erected extensive and costly brick premises.
(i
The following witness may be cited in confirmation of the city’* prosperity. We quote from “Southland Daily News,” July 31st:"While in Invercargill last week, Mr. W. Pryor, secretary of the Employers’ Federation, was very much struck (remarks the “Auckland Herald”) by the progress made by that town since hie previous visit, two years ago.” "It is,” he says, “growing by leaps and bounds, many large, substantial, and ornamental buildings are being put up, and altogether there is a marked air of prosperity about the place that augurs well for its continued progress. In the last five years the growth has been wonderful, and I consider that, speaking in a comparative sense, it is making greater progress than any other town in Now Zealand, with the exception of Auckland.”
RATES.
Not much requires to be said on this subject, as the satisfactory results have more than falsified the groundless statements of interested liquor-sellers. According to the gloomy predictions of brewers and publicans, the town would be hard hit by loss of revenue. They vehemently contended that the borough could never pay its way without license fees ; but the publichouse fees are now numbered amongst the things that have passed away, and no calamity has befallen us. Quite three years ago the then .Mayor stated that the Government valuation had so gone up that it was not necessary to increase the rates. In point of fact, the rate was three-sixteenths of a penny less.
And how does the matter stand now? Well, last year the general and special rate was 4Jd. in the pound, but this year it has been lowered to 3Jd., and yet the same amount of revenue is raised. How is this? The reason is plain. It is well known that the town is forging
ahead, its prosperity is steady and growing, and property values have so increased that the same return is gained from a reduced late. continued prosperity of the city, and its increased values, are some or the best evidences of its real progress and of its sound business.
7
THE MORAL ABOVE THE MATERIAL.
It is quite necessary that all that can be said of the material benefits of No-License in regard to prosperity and business of every sort, should be clearly and emphatically set out. Some people are slow to take in the moral and spiritual qualities which go to build up the true life of the nation. Many are impressed with the importance of soberness to a community in business and in the various handicrafts of industry, etc., but what they see, in the main, is the cash value of soberness. It would never do, of eourse, to overlook or undervalue the gain of a well-balanced brain and a steady hand, say, in the management of a steamer, or in driving a railway train. The safety of the public depends on these. No custom, or liquor habit, of any workman should be allowed for an hour to imperil the lives of the people and their social well-being. The famous saying of Macaulay has never been disputed, and puts, in a nutshell, the whole question. It is this; “The right of a nation to its morality is infinitely higher than the right of a trade to its wealth.”
Liquor advocates continually violate this far-reaching principle. Their talk is always about how their properl .' will be affected, how much they will lose if the drinking usages and publichouses are interfered with by No-License proposals. But they seem unable to see that the real wealth of a country is ever found in its people, in their character, moral condition, integrity, and well-being. “Righteousness exalteth a nation,” If publichouses are to kept going with a succession of drinkers and drunkards—as is true of all their past history—there must be a steady supply of the raw material in the shape of bovs. Drink mills can no more be kept going without a supply of boys than sawmills can be kept going without logs. To think otherwise would be to live in a fool’s paradise. Whose boys are to feed the liquor mills?
REDUCTION OF CRIME.
Tliis was to be expected. Drink and crime walk hand in hand. The more drinking there is, the more crime. Restrain the drinking customs, and the crime roll is reduced. Invercargill is the chief centre
8
of a very large area of country, from which cases are brought to be tried there. Before the advent of No-License the crime record of Invercargill could not be said to be heavy, but the proceedings of the Supreme Court disclose a striking change for the better. We must summarise very briefly each sitting of the Court for three years ;
Mr. Justice Cooper said, on August 28th, 1906: —“I congratulate the jury on the fact that there is only one criminal case.” This a traveller, and not a resident in Invercargill. This was the first Court held after the advent of the new leform.
Mr. Justice Denniston declared, December 3rd, 1906:—“ I congratulate the district on the absence of serious crime.” There were two cases, both outside Invercargill.
Mr. Justice Williams, March oth, 1907 ; —“Congratulated the jury that there were only two criminal cases.” One accused was from the country: this case was dismissed; the other was found not guilty.
Mr. Justice Chapman, June 4th, 1907, said lie was very pleased to be able to congratulate the Grand Jury on the comparative absence
of crime from this large and growing district. The calendar was an exceedingly small one.
Mr. Justice Williams said, August 27th, 1907 : “It was a subject for sincere congratulation that the calendar was so light. I here had been practically a total absence of crime during the last three months.
Mr. Justice Williams, December 10th, 1907:—“ Congratulated the jury on the remarkable absence of crime in the district. There were three cases ; none serious.
Mr. Justice Williams, February 20th, 1908:—Only two cases.
Mr. Justice Denniston, June 2nd, 1908:—“ Again congratulated the district on the extremely satisfactory nature of the calendar. Iwo cases only—not serious. One altering a school certificate to enable a man to get employment. The other was a case of stealing whisky in a License district.
The following four quarters were substantially of the same character as the above, and need not be detailed.
9
Mr. Justice Williams, August 31st, 1909. On this occasion the unusual ceremony took place in court of presenting the judge with a pair of white gloves, in token of a clean sheet, there being no criminal cases for this Supreme Court sitting. There were general congratulations in court.
The compiler of these facts affirms that anyone who will take the trouble to check the above particulars wdl find that only seven convictions have been recorded in the Supreme Court on matters that have arisen in the No-License district of Invercargill. Besides being few in number, all, except one, were not serious cases.
REDUCED CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR
Careful inquiries in No-License areas have revealed to us, from time to time, the decided benefits of the reform movement. They tell us of a reduced consumption of liquor. The Prime Minister laid on the table of the House, on October 7th, 1910, a return which shows that, while the average consumption of liquor in License districts is 12 gallons per head, the average in No-License districts is only two gallons per head, or one-sixth. The “Otago Times” comment on this significant fact, in its leading article of March 17th, 1911, is “that the State paper makes it clear that the . . . consumption per head, in those districts, is only a fraction of the average consumption of the whole Dominion.” These reports tell of a welcome absence of crime, of improved social order in No-License towns, of increased sobriety and comfort in many homes, and of the higher moral tone of the community.
Looked at from another point of view, it stands thus: —Returns for 1910 show that the outlay, per head, for strong drink over the
Whole Dominion was at the rate of £3 13 1^
But in License districts it was 4 3 6
While in No-License electorates it was only 0 16 3
per head of the population, or a little more than one-fifth of the consumption in License areas.
This striking reduction in the quantity of liquor consumed means, for Invercargill and all other No-License electorates, less crime and greater prosperity, more money in the savings banks, more money in circulation for productive expenditure ; and it means, to large numbers of innocent wives and children, deliverance from untold miseries.
ORDERLINESS.
Unless blinded by prejudice, no one could help seeing the gratifying change for the better in the appearance of our streets and the town generally, as compared with the days of open liquor-bars. Formerly it was a common occurrence to see a drunk man ; loafers were commonly sfeeri lounging about the street corners; groups of muddled men and hangers-on hugged the publichouse doors, or blocked the sidewalk. Complaints had been made, and letters of protest appeared in the press, because of the insults to which girls were exposed by this class, especially on Saturday evenings. They had often to run the gauntlet whilst exposed to evil language. It is one of the satisfactory results of this reform that our streets are practically free from such demoralising influences.
Iho loafer who, like Micawber, is always locking for something to turn up. has taken his departure. We know not whither h© has gone, but we trust that ho has sottled down somewhere to honest toil. At any rate he has migrated The ministers of religion, who were formerly often appealed to by this “ne’er-do-weel” class for money to procure
10
meals, or a bed, are now rarely or ever troubled by them. The police affirm, on too ample evidence, that drink and crime go hand in hand, and most crime and criminals are to be found where drinking shops are most numerous. As we have no liquor houses in the city, the loafer and the criminal, for the most part, have taken their flight to more congenial haunts.
Our evening paper (“News”) pointed out that “one of the effects of No-License in Invercargill is the noticeable diminution of the number of those who lolled about the street corners under previous conditions.” The same journal bears testimony, at a later date, to the improved order of the town. It says;—“ The advent of No-License has been to render the town more orderly on Saturday and other nights than was usually the case when License reigned.” The “Southland Times” stated: “That better order is preserved in the streets cannot be gainsaid. This is noticeable at all times, and particularly on Saturdays and holidays, which bring large numbers of people to the town. . . . No one, we believe, would sincerely declare that he would like to see the licensed system restored to Invercargill; for, even among those who oppose Prohibition, the old system of License was widely condemned. We do not know on what grounds the open bar in private hands can be defended.”
The press of the Dominion took special notice of Police-Inspector Mitchell’s report. He says:—‘‘The public generally have taken kindly to the No-License movement, with the result that there is little or no evidence of drunkenness in the streets, Invercargill is a grand testimonial for Xo-License, which, I think, is a crowning success.” The Inspector adds: —“The closing of the open bar has materially improved order and conduct in the streets, and to my knowledge many homes, that formerly knew misery through its existence, now enjoy happiness and content.” In a later report he says:—“ The maintenance of order in the streets of Invercargill has been very marked during the year. In all cases (of drunkenness), except one or two, the source whence the drink was obtained was traceable to places outside the NoLicense area.”
TRAVELLERS’ ACCOMMODATION.
Perhaps in no one point has Invercargill been more persistently traduced than with regard to the accommodation which it furnishes to the travelling public. Every now and again fresh reports are put into circulation with a view to damage the credit of the town, and always unfavourably comparing it with the reign of liquor. In the eyes of some people strong drink can do anything. Matters on this head reached a climax when the notorious slander was sprung upon us by Mr. Harnett, of the English football team, just as the team was 'stepping on board the outgoing steamer at Auckland. Once more we were put upon our defence. The result was that the Municipal Council instructed its inspector to investigate and report upon the state of the hotels and boarding houses. His report, dated September 7th, 1908, says: “I am fully aware of the fact that slanderous statements have been circulated in respect to the present condition of hotels and boarding houses as against the time of license. But, after a careful investigation of all the facts for and against the changed conditions, I am firmly of the opinion that the hotels and boarding houses at the present time are as good as, and in some cases better than, under former circumstances.”
AMUSEMENTS.
A word or two may be said on this topic. According to liquor men it was impossible to be bright and gay without whisky. Once it was thought to be good for everything Shut up the drinking shops
11
GRAND (TEMPERANCE) HOTEL, INVERCARGILL, 1911. This handsome hotel, which is in course of construction, will be four storeys high, and will be built of Ferro-Concrete on the pier and girder system. The building will have fifty-two bedrooms, exclusive of servants’ accommodation, also three large lounges, commodious diningroom measuring 32 x 60. drawingroom, commercial room and writing rooms, opening out on to large balconies, eleven bathrooms are provided, with all up-to-date plunge, shower and spray baths. An electric lift will be installed, and the building will be lit throughout with electric light.
ST. JOHN S ANGLIC A N CHURCH, in course of erection. Estimated cost £5,770.
PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHURCH, ELLES'ROAD Enlarged 1911.
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Foundation Stone laid, 1911. Estimated cost £15,000.
and you would make life humdrum and drab coloured, and mirth would be a thing of the past. But we desire to assure our liquor friends that Invercargill is not the dull place they would make us believe. The sun has not fallen out of our sky. The people have not clothed themselves in sackcloth, nor do they sit in ashes and mourn. Far from it. They can be merry—and wise. Visitors to the town need not fear that time will drag wearily along. We have Fuller’s picture show, the Lyceum show, the Municipal Theatre, King’s Hall Rink, concerts and socials night after night, and how many more it is difficult to say. Never were there so many entertainments for the public; but, then, of course, they are more able to pay for them. _ Tens of thousands of pounds, which used to find their way into the till of the publican, are saved for other and better purposes. As for ordinary games they are of sufficient number and variety to suit any taste —golf, tennis, hockey, football, and not a few others. These are merely mentioned to show that the reign of melancholy has not yet come.
RELIGIOUS PROGRESS.
By general acknowledgment the liquor traffic is one of the chief obstacles bo the advancement of moral and religious progress. Hence, just in so far as we can cripple its power, and lessen its evils, so far do the best interests of the community begin, at once, to move forward. It is interesting to note, at the present time, in the social history of the town, that religious progress is very apparent. The first Presbyterian congregation has resolved to erect a handsome new church, which is to cost about £15,000. Plans have been in hand for some time, and a beginning may be made at an early day. The congregation of St. John’s, Anglican, has accepted tenders for its new church, and it is now in process of erection. It is understood to cost the sum of £57.70.
The handsome, up-to-date building of the Young Men’s Christian Association has now been completed, and was formally opened by His Worship the Mayor, W. A. Ott, Esq., on the 16th of August. This institution is understood to have cost £4400, without the furnishings, and is clear of debt. This large sum of money was raised by public subscription, and speaks well for the liberality and religious sympathies of the citizens.
In this same work, it should be noted that the Salvation Army held services to celebrate the clearing off of a debt of £4OO from their barracks The townspeople gave substantial help in this good work. Other instances might be supplied of religious activity, but these may suffice to show that matters in the religious world are moving forward.
TESTIMONY OF HIS WORSHIP THE MAYOR.
The Mayor of the town has borne testimony again and again to the good effects of the reform movement, and we have pleasure in giving the following statement of his:—
“I have much pleasure in stating that, in so far as Invercargill is concerned. No-license has been an undoubted success.
“Having lived in the town under both License and No-License, I can safely say that, under the No-license law, the town is cleaner, more lawabiding, and in every respect is better by the closing of the open liquor bar.
"It must be admitted, by any unbiassed mind, that money previously expended in the purchase of liquor, deprived of this method of expenditure, will be used in channels more beneficial for the individual and for the community. This has been Invercargill’s experience. So satisfied are the residents that there is not the remotest ohance of the district returning to the old conditions existing prior to 1906.”
WILLIAM A. OTT,
July 31st, 1911
Mayor of Invercargill.
14
FACTS WORTH NOTING.
The following matters, intimately connected with the business life and welfare of the city, speak with a voice that is clear and unmistakable.
The Southland Building and Investment Society and Bank of Deposit has issued its forty-second report (1911). It is the best the shareholders have ever had. The Society has received more money, lent more money, and received more interest than in any previous year. It is the record year, and stands at the top.
A well-known business man, and an expert in certain lines of properties, tells us, on the best authority, that there are more freeholders in Invercargill and district than in any other part of New Zealand. It is a notable statement, and is not the sign of a dying district.
It is noted as a pleasing and gratifying incident in the history of the Press in Invercargill that both the daily newspapers, “The Southland Times” and "The Southland Daily News,” have been enlarged in course of the past year to eight pages, and on Saturdays to twelve pages. This indicates progress, and that a distinct stage has been reached in the town and district.
Saturday is the weekly market, when crowds come to town. A marked change for the better is seen at the railway station as compared with the days of license. Then men the worse for liquor were common enough. Now it is, indeed, a contrast. Such evidences of sobriety which the reform has brought should be welcomed by all who wish well to their fellowmen.
The annual summer show is attended by some twelve thousand visitors, and it is a rare thing to see a tipsy man. Formerly the publicans’ liquor booths produced without fail the usual crop of drunken people. It is a fitting sequel to this that the Winter Show, with thousands of visitors, should present similar gratifying signs of sobriety.
It is noteworthy that there has been a welcome absence of drink tragedies. When decorum and orderliness prevail we are apt to forget these startling sensations. In license districts such cases occur.
Real test nights were Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve. The streets were crowded, yet no drunken people were in evidence. A visitor remarked, after watching the crowds: “A more orderly, sober, wellbehaved and well-dressed people I have never seen,”
APPEAL.
Testimony is borne by citizens of every class to the undoubted success of No-license in Invercargill, and to the many benefits experienced by the town, materially, socially, and morally. And it is, in every way, to the credit of the new reform that it has been able to do so much under the most adverse conditions. From the first day of Nolicense, breweries and beer depots have been established on the borders of the electorate, and have greatly interfered with the working of Nolicense, lessening, in no small degree, its value.
But even in spite of this unjust handicap, this social reform movement has done much already for the electorate, in mitigating the evils which flow from the drinking custom of the age; and it is a sure warrant of the brighter and better times to which we can legitimately look forward. All we claim is a fair field, and no favour.
In view of the continued disastrous effects of the traffic in alcoholic liquors, we once more earnestly urge upon the electors to make full use of the powers granted by last session of Parliament, by exercising their privilege of voting local No-License and Dominion Prohibition —
STRIKING OUT THE TOP LINE IN BOTH VOTING PAPERS.
15
Y.M.C.A. Property, cost £4,400, and opened free from debt, August 16th, 1911.
UP-TO-DATE FACTS
Population in the-12No-License Electorates - - -
1 __ ...
Convictions for Drunkenness, January 1— June 30,1911
165
(Vide Parliamentary Return, October 10th, 1911)
Population in Taihape (License) 1577
Convictions for Drunkenness January I—June 30,1911
143'
1
OURSELVES.
’TWAS WON
On TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17th, 1908, over three-fifths of the Voters of the Masterton Electorate declared in favour of NO-LICENSE, and thus ’TWAS WON.
’TWAS WELL WON.
The fight against the cruel tyranny and demoralising influence of the Liquor traffic had been waged for years till, in 1908, by a mighty rush of Voters the power of the tyrant was broken, and Masterton went free. The battle was fierce, but ’TWAS WELL WON.
’TIS WELL ’TWAS WON
Two happy, prosperous years have passed since the vote of the people took effect, and the shutters were put up on the licensed bar. During those two years our town has grown cleaner and our people more sober. Our homes too are happier and our children are better cared for since No-License came into operation, and all agree that ’TIS WELL ’TWAS WON.
2
To Our Readers.
Ladies and Gentlemen :
In presenting our Second Annual Report we desire to submit to you a full, fair and accurate statement of the results of No-License in Masterton ; in doing this we publish the contentions of our opponents as freely as we do those of our supporters.
We have carefully reviewed all facts which have come under our notice, and have given publicity in our Report to everything which in our judgment has any direct bearing on NoLicense and its effect upon the town.
Wherever possible ire have quoted official figures irrespective of whether they are favourable or otherwise to the caxwi we advocate.
We were extremely gratified with the many kind expressions of appreciation received on publishing our first year’s Report (No-License Tells its Own Tale) which had a circulation of over 30,000 copies.
This encourages us to hope that the present Report will meet ivith still greater favour, have a wider circulation, and accomplish even greater good than its predecessor.
The work of compiling it has involved the expenditure of a ep-cat deal uf time, hut it has been a labour of love and ice pass it on with the earnest prayer that it may be made a messenger of Convincing Truth to all into whose hands it may find its way.
Yours for the good of all,
D. McGEEGOR, Jun., President.
C. IBBETSON, Secretary.
JABEZ BRIDGES, Organiser.
Masterton, 14tli July, 1911
3
FOREWORD.
to the poll of 190S it was frequently declared by “ our akst friend the enemy ” that if Xo-License were carried Masterton would he ruined, the people would leave the town and business would all go to Carterton. In fact so doleful a tale did the said friend tell that it brought to mind the story of the American publican’s parrot which was strongly recommended because it did not swear, but which the purchaser declared to be the biggest liar that ever struck a prohibition state. The parrot’s constant cry like that of our opponent was “ Prohibition kills a town. Prohibition kills a town. Prohibition kills a town.” This little booklet gives the lie direct to every such assertion of “ our friend, the enemy.”
Wfnzenberg Photo Queen Street, Masterton.
A Favoured Town
Masterton is remarkably favoured. It is the centre of one of the richest valleys in the Wairarapa, if not the richest and prettiest valley of the Dominion. Happily situated on the broad and luxurious flat amid undulating hills, it is the distributing centre for prosperous sheep and dairy farmers, whose well-kept holdings, alive with sleek cattle and fat sheep, tell of easy and confident circumstances and of true prosperity. The town of Masterton is clean, bright, modernlybuilt with well-finished brick and stone shops, and altogether makes a pleasant picture. —Tribune.
We have seen (as Archbishop Ireland says) “ That there is no hope of improving in any shape or form the liquor trade. There is nothing but to wipe it out completely/’ And so we have done this in Masterton. —Ed.
279
Winzenberg Queer, St Club Hotel.
This hotel never closed its doors and is now running as a Private Hotel under the name CLUB CAFE.
This hotel is now the FARMERS’ AND COMMERCIAL MEN’S RESIDENTIAL CLUB, with a membership of about 400.
Winzenberg Photo Occidental Hotel.
This hotel is now running as a Private Hotel and is under the management of a Mas teuton ex-publican.
Winzenberg Queen St. Prince of Wales Hotel.
Winzenberg Queen St. Central Hotel.
This hotel has been turned into shops, which are occupied and doing good business.
Winzenberg Photo Empire Hotel.
This hotel, the property of Staples and Co., Brewers, stands empty, possibly in anticipation of the restoration of Licenses.
Winzcnberg Queen SI. Queen s Hotel.
This hotel, the property of Staples and Co., stands empty, possibly in anticipation of the restoration of Licenses.
We agree -with Cardinal Yanghan, who says, “ The houses of the Liquor Trade are so many vampires that suck the life blood of the bodies of the poor.”
AND THEREFORE WE HAVE CLOSED THESE—Ed
6
No-License and Crime.
CLOSING THE LIQUOR BAR REDUCES THE COURT SITTINGS BY AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS.
A STRIKING CONTRAST.
A FACT, NOT A FAKE !
In the mx months ended June 30th, 1908, (under License) there were 119 sittings of the Magistrate’s Court for Criminal business and for the six months ended June 30th, 1911, there were only 39 a reduction of s0 sittings in six months. Comment is superfluous?
Second Year of No-License
MASTERTON IS JUSTLY PROUD OF THIS RECORD.
Total Criminal convictions recorded in Magistrate’s Court for vear ended June 30th, 1911 :
Convictions for—
Drunkenness ... ... 36
Vagrancy ... ... 1
Obscene Language ... 5
Theft ... g
Burglary ... ... 3
AV ilful damage to property 1
Assault ... ... 3
Breach of Peace ... ... J,
Breach of Licensing Law ... 17
Breach of Prohibition Order 2
Prohibition Orders issued ... -1
Committals to Mental Asylum 12
Committals to Receiving Home 3
Maintenance Cases ... 3
Total 100
Liquor Lies.
“Prohibition increases the number of liquor dealers, it increases the number of deaths from drunkenness, it increases the amount of crime, it stagnates the state and prevents prosperity —“ Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette.”
Tn all No-License districts Drunkenness is rapidly increasing every year.”
7
No-License has almost abolished Crime and Drunkenness in Masterton, as these Court Records prove :
(Years ended June 30th)
1910. First Year under No-License
1911. Second Year under No-License.
1909. Last year under License.
Convictions for
DRUNKENNESS ... ... 287 41 36
VAGRANCY ... ... 25 2 1
OBSCENE LANGUAGE ... 21 2 5
THEFT ... ... ... 44 8 6 _ . , „ n A n
Indecent Exposure ... ... 3 0 0
Malicious Injury to Property ... 5 1 1
Obstructing or Resisting Police _l2 2 0
TOTALS 397 56 49
NOTE. —With regard to the figures for Drunkenness under No-License, it was proved in Court that 26 of the arrested persons were drunk when they arrived in town from adjoining Electorates.
Court Returns.
INTERESTING FIGURES
The following statistics of the criminal business transacted at the Masterton Magistrate’s Court have been taken from the Court returns, and are for the quarters ended June 30th for the years 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911
Under License Under No-License
1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. nn f~i O
Drunkenness ... ... 78 78 2
Burglary ... ~~ f
Vagrancy ... ...3 2 o
Theft ... 9 4 i 1 O 12
Obscene Language ... 1 2 1
Breaches of the Peace ... 2 4
Lunacy ... ... 2 3 ? a -.a. a n 9. 1
Assault _ .••• * J A A
Breaches of Licensing Act ... 10 12 15 15
Failing to Maintain Children 2 3 3
ill 108 23 43
“ The absence of crime is considered one of the best evidences of the prosperity of a people, so the Masterton people are to be congratulated on the prosperity of the district as shown bv the records I have been quoting from. His Honor the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, at the last sittings of the Supreme Court in Masterton.
283
No License and Business.
Tradesmen are Satisfied.
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY FAVOR NO-LICENSE
At the end of June last ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN Shopkeepers were asked a series of questions relative to the effect of No-License on their particular business.
EIGHTY-NINE replied and twenty-five refused to do so. Of the latter several were known to hold opinions favorable to No-Li-cense, while others were known to be equally unfavourable.
The questions and answers were as under:—
1. QUESTION 1 What effect, if any, has No-License had on your business ? ANSWER 72 said good effect, or business has not suffered fir
. ~ jjuuu cucti, or uusmess nas not sunerea by it 4 said bad effect
13 were indefinite
89
2. Question 11 What effect has No-License had on public order and the general moral tone ?”
gcuoiar IUULai tone Answer —84 said a good effect
" - •'“I 1 * “ SUUU5 UUU cucuu 3 said a bad effect
2 were indefinite
89
Question— 1 ' Would it in your opinion be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored ?"
jLJxceu&es restored Answer—7o said No
7 said Yes
12 were indefinite
89
KELLIHER S “ FACTS."
“ Masterton is a striking example of business depression, financial embarrassment and general stagnation. ..... The financial depression is 135 times more marked in Masterton than in Wellington.”—J. J. KELLIHFR Masterton, in the Manawatu Standard, *
If you approach a shopkeeper in any of the prohibition towns and ask them how prohibition is progressing they will tell you splendid, good success, etc. The shopkeeper thinks yon are probably a buyer for his business, so he is on the move trying to sell out of his fast-declining business.”—J. FARQUHAR, Wellineton in the Sydney Herald.
284
No-License Promotes Commercial Prosperity.
BANKRUPTCY STATISTICS PROVE THIS FACT
During the year ended December 31st, 1908, (under License)' there were 25 Bankruptcies with liabilities amounting to £14,325 7s 6d ; during 1909 (half License, half No-License) there were 27 with £11,669 13s lOd liability; and in 1910 (under No-License) there were 24 with total liabilities £9921 Os lOd.
In order to obtain from the foregoing figures a fair indication of the effect of No-License on trade it is necessary to state that the Masterton Court is the only one in the Wairarapa where bankruptcies may be filed so that many of the insolvencies come from districts outside the Masterton Electorate. We therefore give seperate tables showing the bankruptcies filed which apply to Masterton Electorate under No-License and those filed within the Court district but outside of the No-License area.
Read this Table carefully.
BANKRUPTCIES WERE PILED IN MASTERTON as under
From within Masterton Electorate.
From outside No-License area.
Liabilities. Liabilities.
1908 (under License) 19 £8755 I 7 6 £5570 5 11
1909 (i L., p.L.) 13 £4953 18 0 14 £6715 15 10
1910 (under No-License) 11 £3973 19 2 13 £5948 I 8
From the above it will be seen that there has been a considerable decrease within the No-Licence Electorate and a decided increase within those districts still under License.
NOTE.—During Die half-year ended June 30th, 1909, 16 bankruptcies were filed as against 13 foi the first half of 1910, and 12 for the corresponding half of this year (1911).
Winzenberg Masterton Technical School,
Queen St. opened December 10th, 1908
10
WANTED —Information!
A Request from Carterton.
On Monday, June 19th, 1911, thirty-six shopkeepers, two doctors and two ministers forwarded to .Masterton the following request for information :
TO THE BUSINESS MEN OF MASTERTON:
Gentlemen, —Owing to persistent contradictory reports of the results of No-License in Masterton, we the undersigned business and professional men of Carterton have resolved to ask you to give definite answers to the following questions —
1. What effect, if any, has No-License had on your business ?
2. What effect has A o-License had on public order and the general moral tone of the community ?
3. Would it, in your opinion, be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored ?
Over one hundred business and professional men of Masterton gave individual replies to the request. A special meeting of the Carterton tradespeople was called for Tuesday, July 18th. to receive the replies. His Worship the Mayor, Mr i'. Feist, in opening the meeting said they had not met as license, no-liceuse, or moderate advocates, but as business men, to enquire in a business-like manner into a business matter, A number of reports of a very conflicting nature were in circulation in regard to no-license in Masterton, and it was desired to get a reliable and direct report from fellow business men in that town.
The replies were then read, and after some discussion the meeting passed the following resolutions ;
1. “ That this meeting desires to thank the Masterton tradespeople for replies to our questions ; is satisfied that No-License has improved business and the moral tone of that town, and commends their verdict to the serious consideration of our own townspeople.”
2. “ That the replies from Masterton be printed and forwarded to all business men throughout the South Wairarapa electorate.”
11
The following are a few of the Replies received from the Masterton Tradesmen*
Messrs BEALE A - Co., Ltd., Plumbers and General Ironmongers, said, “ It is difficult to say what effect No-License has had on our business, but the last financial year has been better than 1909-10, and £B6l better than 190S-9. NoLicense has had this effect on the moral tone —one can take wife or children along the streets without the old feeling (I am sorry such language is forced on them). To restore licenses and revert to the old order would be retrograde, and after passing all due credits and debits we’re satisfied that the cash left in the district far outweighs what the legitimate trader got under License from shepherds, shearers, etc., who came in with their alleged big cheques.”
u A . LEX . DONALD ’ Tailor. (Member Masterton Borough Council), said, “ My business is better under No-License, there being more ready cash and less bad debts. No-Li cc ise has decidedlj improved Ltone.” When asked if he would advise the restoration of Licenses Mr Donald said emphatically “No !”
Mr J. C. EWINGTON, Implement and Coach Works, (Member Masterton ' ness. My cash takings are greater and I am doing better business generally. No-License has had the verj ot on the moral tone of this community.” MrEwington, when asked if, in his opinion, it would be better to have Licenses restored, said, “ Decidedly not! ”
Messrs D. FINLAYSON & SON, Bootmakers, said, “ We take more cash over the counter under No-License, and sell more children’s boots than ever before. The moral tone is better in every way under No-License. In our opinion it would not b to the best inten ste of the town to have Licensee restored.
Mr WINZENBERG, Photographer, said, “I see no noticeable difference in amount of business done under No-License, but the business being done is much sounder, and my books show a steady improvement. No-License has had a decidedly good effect on the moral tone of the community. The town is cleaner, healthier and sweeter, and the footpaths are now open to the women and children. I consider that going Lack to the old state of things (License) would be a verv bad thing for us all.”
Mr L. St. GEORGE, Chemist, said, “ My candid and honest opinion is that the depression which set in in Masterton fully nine months before No-License took effect was due mainly to the fact that borrowed money (for public works) had all been expended, causing lack of work, etc. As regards my business it has gradually increased since the advent of No-License. The effect of No-License on public order has been to banish from our midst a class of undesirables. The town is much cleaner and young men who frequented the public bars now patronise picture shows and other innocent amusements. I hope to see No-License become general, or National Prohibition adopted.”
Mr GORDON, Chemist, said, “ My business has considerably improved during the period of No-License. Public order (under No-License) has been almost perfect, and the moral tone has greatly improved. It would not be to the best interests of the community to have Licenses restored.”
287
Mr H. T. WOOD, Chemist, said, “ Business is good considering the depression Masterton has been passing through, caused, in my judgment, first, to no loan money being spent, second to building trade being very quiet, third, to an inconvenient railway time-table, although since the time-table to the Bush district has been altered business has improved. No-License has had a splendid effect on the moral tone, drunkenness in the streets being almost a thing of the past.” When asked if it would be to the best interests of the town to haveLicenses restored, Mr Wood said “ No I ”
Mr G. HYDE, Furniture Warehouse, said, “ I am doing comparatively better business under No-License, the writing-off of bad debts has diminished. Theeffect of No-License on the moral tone has been good and beneficial in everyway.”’ Mr Hyde emphatically declared it would not, in his opinion, be in the community’s best interests to restore Licenses.
Mr C. E. DANIELL, Sawmiller, Builder, and General Hardware Merchant, said, “ It is not easy to recognise the effect of No-License on my business, but I note that in the retail department the cash takings show decided improvement over previous years. In spite of some illicit trading by those who revel in defying the law and in trading on the weakness of their fellows the improvement in the moral tone is most marked.” When asked if it would be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored, Mr Daniell said, “ No, decidedly not, especially in consideration of the interests of the young people.”
Mr W. SHAW, Gentlemen’s Outfitter, said, “ No-License has a good effecton my business. lam doing a greater volume of trade, my cash returns arebetter, Ido less booking, and all without the abuse of drunken customers. NoLicense has had a decidedly good effect on public order, there are no drunken men to be seen in the streets, which are now morally clean.” When asked if it would, in his opinion, be to the best interests of the town to haveLicenses restored, said, “ Certainly not, for we now have greater peace in our town than ever we had under License.”
Mr R. RUSSELL, Second-Hand Dealer, said, “ No-License has a good effect upon my business. I have taken larger premises and am now employing labour. lam doing a greater volume of trade and my cash returns are decidedly better. No-License has decidedly improved the moral tone of the community, drunkenness and its vices have practically disappeared.” Mr Russell said 'it would be disastrous to the town to have Licenses restored. This gentleman was asked from which section of the community he obtained his stock, and replied “ From the artisan class.” “ Are these people so badly off that they have to sell their belongings? ” was asked. “No,” was the reply, “ thay are re-furnishing with a better class of goods.” “-Then to whom do you sell?” was queried. “To the poorer class who had little but boxes in their houses,” said Mr Russell. These people are now buying the second-rate stuff and are thus making their places more comfortable and home-like.
Space forbids setting out all names and statements of the tradesmen who expressed themselves favourable to No-License, but the statements of ALL who expressed themselves unfavourably are given IN FULL on next page.
Tradespeople of Carterton are publishing the list in extenso.
13
Two Sides to every Question.
WHAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS TO SAY—“WE ARE SEVEN”
Following are the statements IN FULL of ALL the business men from whom replies were received who declared in favour of the Restoration of Licenses.
The names of the gentlemen were given us for publication and can be seen if •desired. They have been withheld as a matter of consideration.
Baker, Queen St., said “I cannot say what effect No-License has had on my business. But it has had a bad effect on the moral tone of the town, and in my opinion IT WOULD BE TO THE BEST INTERESTS of the community to have Licenses restored.”
Jeweller, Queen St., said, “No-License is no D good to business, but it has a good effect on the moral tone of the community. In my opinion it would be best to have Licenses restored.”
Blacksmith, Queen St., said, “Business is not as good as before NoLicense. I consider that the general depression has something to do with the falling off in my business. It is hard to say what effect it has on the moral tone, but we have not got so many hard cases about as before No-License. In my opinion it would be best to have the Licenses restored.”
Tailor, Queen St., said, “ My business has suffered as a result of NoLicense, because it keeps the country people from coming to town. No-License lias improved the moral tone of the community.” When asked if it would, in his opinion, be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored, he said “ Yes.”
Cordial Manufacturer, Chapel St., said, “ No-License has had a great deal of prejudicial effect on my business. It has also a bad effect on our young men, there being more drinking amongst them now than during License.” To our ■enquiry as to whether, in his opinion, it would be in the best interests of the town to restore Licenses, he said “ Yes.”
Whose business is not to be indicated, said, “ My business is under new management, I therefore cannot say what effect No-License has upon it. NoLicense has a bad effect upon the moral tone of the people. When asked if, in his opinion it would be to the best interests of the community to have Licenses restored, he said “ Yes.”
Mr E. G. ETON, Chemist, in a public meeting recently held in the open air declared that “ No-License is a perfect failure,” so we include him in the lonely seven.
“ It is simply beyond belief that any Christian man can say one word in favour of a beverage that poisons the blood and ruins the soul. The history of drinking is written within and without in mourning, lamentation and woe. It stands alone as a record of sorrow and shame and murder.” —Rev. Joseph Parker, D.D.
No' License and the Savings Bank.
PHENOMENAL INCREASED SAYINGS UNDER NO-LICENSE.
289
Winzenberg Photo
The Masterton Post Office Savings Bank.
REMARKABLE INCREASE IN SAVINGS
Following is the official return of the Savings bank business at Masterton during the years 1908-9-10. sierton
No. of New A/cs opened.
No. of Deposits.
Amount Deposited
Year
i nno r wo *"’. wsposiiea. 1908 681 6037 £66.788 ik k
tqaq tbbf/ 33 16 6 1?V? 601 5839 66.418 17 n
rain «vn« 17 0 1910 614 6355 76,944 II 6
No. of A/cs closed.
No. of Withdrawals.
Amount Withdrawn
Year.
>vnuurawn. 1908 308 3159 £50.822 5 7
243 3033 SSf n a"
224 2950 49.1 \
The difference between the amount deposited and that withdrawn shows the actual amount saved m each year—viz, in 1908 .€15,911, in 1909€14,324 and in 1910 (under No-License) the people of Masterton saved €27,919, or €12.008, (over €lOOO tTh™ m ° re than SaVed durin g 1908 six fine palatial liquor houses
The following is a LUCID AND LOGICAL explanation of the above table given by one of our opponents. Mr J. J. Kelliher, law clerk. Masterton in the Manawatu Standard of April 21, 1911 “ People here prefer to put their monev mto the Savings Bank at 1 or 2 % rather than invest it in the securitv offering m the town at 6 and 8 %, showing clearly that thev have lost faith in their town from an investment point of view. Of course, the Savings Bank deposits increase the people being unwilling to invest their monev in the town—are actuallv re’ moving their money from the banks and putting it in the Post Office Savings Bank the inducement being currency instead of a fixed deposit, and the 1 or 2 \ interest in preference tc investment in the town at any price.”
15
Winzenberg Queen St. Masterton Town Hall.
Our Second Birthday Party.
The Masterton Town Hall was filled to overflowing on Friday night, June 30th, the occasion being the celebration of our second anniversary. Hundreds who desired to be present were unable to gain admission. The editor of one of the newspapers had to seek the aid of a constable before he could make his way into the hall.
The crowd was enthusiastic and inspiring, the speeches spicy and the singing a treat. The people were delighted with the Annual Report, which was full of indisputable evidence of the SUCCESS OF NO-LICENSE IN MASTERTON.
The testimony of each of the local doctors bearing on the vexed question of home drinking was read and received with loud applause. The statements contained in the report of local business men were both convincing and encouraging. The Court returns had a prominent place in the Report, and no better evidence of the good results of No-License could possibly have been produced than that aupplied by the Magistrate’s Court.
The fact that seven of the local ministers had added their weight of testimony to the good moral effect of No-License was very pleasing.
The statement that the Carterton tradespeople had sent to the local busine* men a request for information regarding the effects of No-License in Masterton and that over one hundred of the latter had replied was received with prolonged applause.
A feature of the Demonstration was the half-hour granted to opponents of No-License to express their views, prove their own statements, or refute those of the Secretary. Only one availed himself of the opportunity and he expressed no views, neither did he prove nor disprove any statements, but his “speech” was a very pleasant diversion, his request that the “ No-License party should not treat them as children ” being received with roars of laughter.
The Birthday Party was so great a success, that even the most persistent opponent o£ No-License present could not but feel that No-License has come to stay.
291
No-License and Rateable Values.
The following official return shows the rateable value of Masterton properties for years ended March 31st.
1908. 1909. 1910. 1911.
Capital Values of £ £ £ £
rateable lands 1,059,380 1,079,541 1,079,423 1,080,030
Value of Improvements 520,123 540,458 542,473 543,729
The above table does not include exempt and non-rateable prop erties in either case.
The winner of the King’s Prize in Victoria at the recent rifle competitions is a total abstainer.
Ladies’ Swimming Baths.
The gift of Dr. W H. Hosking.
Opened — 22nd January, 1910
Winzenberg Photo
No-License and Gas Consumption.
LARGE INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION.
The following table shows Master-ton's consumption of gas for years ended March 31st.
UNDER LICENSE. UNDER NO-LICENSE.
1908. 1910.
21,958,000 cubic feet. 25,139,000 cubic feet.
1909. 1911.
25,250,000 cubic feet 26,215,000 cubic feet.
Young Gray, the Australian, who is now attracting so much attention in England by his remarkable achievements at billiards is a total abstainer.
292
No-License and the Hospital.
A Striking Testimony.
Dr. ARCHER HOSKING, Medical Superintendent of the Masterton Hospital, says, “ Both in private practice and in the Hospital there are less cases under treatment which are due directly or indirectly to drink.”
44 Anything can be Preserved in Alcohol, except Health, Wealth and Happiness.”
(Grit.)
Inside View of the Ladies’ SwimmingBaths.
Dr. W. H. Hosking measures the depth of water.
Winzenberg Queen St.
No-License and the Building Trade.
Slight falling off last year.
LICENSE
Building Permits issued by Town Clerk during year ended 30th June, 1909.
34
representing £14,000.
NO-LICENSE
Building Permits issued by Town Clerk during year ended 30th June, 1910.
63
representing £21,445.
NO-LICENSE
Building Permits issued by Town Clerk during year ended 30th June, 1911.
48
representing £97591756 d
When presiding at the annual general meeting of the Indianapolis Breweries in December last Mr. B. T. L. Thomson said “The Sunday closing had meant to them a loss of 15,000 barrels in the city alone ” (and yet they tell us Prohibition does not prohibit.) —Ed.
293
What the Doctors say.
Unanimous Verdict for No-License.
Each of the six Medical Practitioners in Masterton, gave us a statement for publication.
READ WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY,
Dr. W. H. HOSKING said, “In answer to your enquiry as to the alleged increase of private drinking in the homes of the people of Masterton. lam not so well able to authoritatively answer this as I should have been some years ago, as I am not now so much in touch with the people in their homes since resigning general practice for special w’ork. But from what I have seen and do see daily and hoar from my daily talk with people with w T hom I am in touch, I should think the report is utterly unfounded. At any rate, one sees no evidence of it in homes to which I have access, nor in the streets, which should be an eye-opener to anyone who wishes to see rightly.”
Dr. ARCHER HOSKING said, “ I don’t know of any homes in the district where drinking has increased. I have never seen a person drunk or drinking in homes since No-License came into force. It’s all rubbish to say that home drinking is increasing. I know of many cases where that weak type of man who was guilty of over-indulgence in liquor to the neglect of his wife and children, where they now are better fed, clad and shod than under License. I have been told by many mothers of families of the improvement in their home comforts since No-License came into operation. I know several station hands who in former days used to “blow in” their cheques, who now pride themselves in being able to come to town among their fellows, get rigged out and go home at the end of their holiday feeling respectable members of society.”
Dr. HELEN COWIE said, “ I do not see any evidence of increased home drinking. Alcoholic cases have decidedly decreased. I know of quite a few homes which are decidedly more comfortable as a direct result of No-License.”
Dr. J. A. COWIE said, “ I do not know of any home in Masterton where Liquor is now consumed where it was not so consumed under License. Ido not have nearly so many calls to attend patients suffering from the effects of liquor now as when the bars were open. In fact, cases directly due to liquor have very much decreased. I can only call to mind having treated one case directly caused by drink since No License came into operation. The homes of the drinking class which used to be very much neglected are now* much improved ; that look of poverty and abject misery has disappeared.”
Dr. COOK said, “ I do not think that home drinking has increased. Personally I do not treat as many alcoholic cases now as before No-License came into force. I think that the homes of the poorer classes show' greater evidence of comfort now than they did previously.”
Dr. N. H. PRIOR said, “ I had only about six months’ experience of Masterton under License, and during that time did not see any great evidence of home drinking, but can say positively that I have not been able to detect any increase in that direction. During my first six months here I treated several drunks who made a distinct impression on my mind, for not one of them has yet paid me, but since No-License came into operation I have not treated one case of drunkenness.”
294
The Social Side.
Evidence of Ministers and Others.
READ WHAT THE MASTERTON MINISTERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NO-LICENSB.
Winzenberg Photo Methodist Schoolroom, opened March 6th, 1910.
Rev. A. T. THOMPSON, 8.A., 8.D., Presbyterian Minister, said, “ In answer to your request, I send you the following testimony which, as a citizen and minister of religion in Masterton for almost five years, I have much pleasure in submitting. Nothing, it would seem, but the set determination NOT TO BE CONVINCED would enable one to hold out against the accumulative and overwhelming evidence as to the improvement of Masterton in certain evident directions, and the success generally of No-License in our electorate during the period of its trial. Our Court returns tell the storv of a distinct, I might say phenomenal, improvement in the public morals. Our Savings Bank returns, aided by the reliable evidence of reputable business men, tell in favour of the financial well-being of the community. Our own eyes bear witness every day to a cleaner, happier, healthier town. There are, I verily believe, more comforts in the homes of many of our people in consequence, and speaking as a minister .there has been almost the entire disappearance of appeals for help, railway fares, meals, beds, deposits and fees at labour bureaux, which used to be my continual experience under the licensed system. The change is, at least in my experience, remarkable. My recent visit to the Old Country and the Continent made me come back more convinced than ever of the awful blight and curse of drink in a community, and of our own good fortune in Masterton and electorate to be rid of its licensed sale. It must never come back, as we value our own happiness, peace and prosperity, and that of our fellow men.”
20
Rev. ALFRED HODGE, Congregational Minister, Masterton, said, “There can be no two opinions as to the good effects that No-License has had upon the town during the last two years, by those who knew it before then and now. From a point of view of business it is true that there have been some insolvencies, but why Masterton has been singled out is hard to say, considering that our neighbours under License have fared worse than we. It is also highly probable however, that had it not been for No-License the town would not be in as good a position as it is. lam inclined to criticise the undue prominence that our citizens have given to the commercial side of this great reform. The moral side must be fearlessly urged. Business has nothing to do with it. It is simply and purely a question of Righteousness.”
ENSIGN AVENELL, Salvation Army Officer, Masterton, said, “ In reply to your request re my impressions regarding No-License in Masterton, I may state that I have only been a resident here for five months, and so am unable to compare it with three years ago. I would, however, like to point out that I find in Masterton an utter absence of those objectionable features which are the product of the open bar—young men lounging about street corners, using improper language, etc. Nor do I find in my rounds of visitation so many homes made unhappy as is the case where the open bar flourishes.”
Rev. S. J. SERPELL, Methodist Minister, Masterton, said, “ This is my first experience of a town under No-License. I have been here since the 11th of April. In all my intercourse with men, in all my time in the streets, at all hours of the day and night, I have not yet heard a profane word. One can take his wife or'children into the streets of our town at any time without any danger of them hearing anything they should not hear. Yesterday I went to the city ; immediately after leaving Carterton bad language was frequently heard from those and others who got on the train there. I attribute the bad language usually heard in public places to the fact that men have had liquor. It is just splendid having our town free from the wretched habit of profane language in the streets.”
REV. E. SWINERD, Baptist Minister, said “ I have only been in Masterton about three weeks but as far as I can see the town looks very prosperous. The absence of drunkenness in the streets is very marked. I have been much struck with the orderliness of the town and the fact that bad language does not assail our ears at every corner. I consider these things are evidences of the high moral tone of this community under No-License.”
MR. J. E. PARSONS, Minister in charge of Methodist Church, Kuripuni, said “ Coming into Masterton direct from the Old Country, I was prepared for any effect the closing of the hotels may have had on the town. The brewing interests at Home had done all in their power to lead us to believe that NoLicense in the Colonies was a failure, and that “ drunks ” were just as prevalent as under License. Statistics gave them the lie, yet one felt that possibly either party might be inclined to exaggerate the benefits or detriments accruing from No-License. But on arriving here only ten weeks after leaving England, where the terrible effects of the ‘‘open bar” are so obvious, I was simply amazed at the contrast between Masterton and the other towns that I had lived
21
and worked in. For years scarcely a day had passed in which I had not seen at least one ‘‘drunk,” most days several, but in Masterton during the sixteen weeks I have been here I have only seen one intoxicated person. In the course of my work in the Old Land I continually found homes where children lacked both food and clothes, while their parents spent their time and money in the bar. I have yet to find the home in Masterton where children are in want of either food or clothes through parental neglect. A feature which particularly appealed to me, especially on Saturday nights, was the freedom of the streets from corner-lounging youths, such as we find in all places where the public house is open. The town is conspicuous for its high moral tone, a fact which I can only account for by the establishment of No-License.”
Mk. ALF SNOWBALL, Secretary Y.M.C.A., says “ I commenced my work in Master ton as the Secretary of the Y.M.C.A. on July Bth, 1909, just a week after the advent of No-License. In these two years I have seen only four men the worse for intoxicating liquor, although I generally see Masterton main thoroughfare during its bus -. viz., from 8 t > 10 p.m. each Saturday. Compared with other towns of a similar size in Australia and Hew Zealand, Masterton is the best I’ve yet been into for sense, sobriety and solidity. In my work I have had occasion to wait upon tradesmen and others, and have failed to see or hear of any trade slackness of any disturbing quantity. I have, besides, been thrown much into the company of strangers, visitors to the town, and I am able to pass on from them nothing but good, their unanimous opinion being in favour of No-License reform.”
Winzenberg Queen St. Y.M.C.A. Gymnasium.
297
An Interesting Page.
CENSUS RETURNS PROVE USEFUL IN REFUTING UNTRUE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS,
Census Returns.
BOROUGH OF MASTEBTON.
POPULATION—APRIL, 1906 ... ... 5026.
APRIL, 1911 ... ••• 5159.
The above Census does not take in either Lansdowne, Upper Plain or Lower Manaia and Homebush.
“ The Opaki Riding of the Masterton County shows a population of 1913. Of this number it is estimated that 1500 reside at Lansdowne, Upper Plain and Opaki within a radius of two miles of the town Post Office, add to these the population of Lower Manaia and other portions of Te Whiti Riding and the population of Greater Masterton is approximately 7000.” (Age)
Fewer Empty Houses
Number of empty houses in Masterton on 30th June, 1909
Number of empty houses in Masterton on 30th June, 1910
Number of empty houses in Masterton at last Census
52
SO
51
The Census of 1906 showed 1011 houses in Masterton, 12 of which were unoccupied, while the Census of 1911 shows 1211 houses of which 52 were unoccupied.
There were, therefore, in April last, 160 more occupied houses in Masterton than there were five years ago.
And yet we were told in the Sydney Morning Herald by Mr T. DWAN, of Wellington that Masterton is full of empty houses and shops, and that the decrease in drunkenness is caused by the decrease in the number of persons living in and visiting Masterton.”
muu iioimit 411.1aauu1.11v/u- _ so MUCH FOR Mr DWAN’S FACTS.
Masterton Fire Brigade Station.
Winzenbeig, Photo
298
Eketahuna under No-License.
What Prominent Business and Professional Men have to say about it.
Mr PAGE, the Mayor of Eketahuna, in reply to the question “ What effect has No-License had on public order and the general moral tone of the community ? ” said, “ I consider that the effect has in this respect been beneficial.” “ Would it, in your opinion be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored ? ” “ No. From a commercial point of view, I think that the town as a whole has experienced very little difference either to its benefit or to its detriment as a consequence of No-License. Prom other points of view (sobriety, moral tone, clean living, etc.) the town is, I think, the better without licensed houses. No-License has materially checked the drinking that was done by young men. I think that local option has many objections and that a vote taken over the whole of New Zealand would be fairer and more satisfactory.”
Eketahuna is in the Masterton Electorate and about 25 miles north of Masterton. It is the second town in the Electorate and has a large area of fine pastoral lands surrounding it. There were four fine hotels in the town under License three of which are now running as private hotels, while the fourth closed its doors on June 30th, 1909, and has since remained unoccupied.
Our President and Organiser in May last waited on all the shopkeepers and put to them a series of questions similar to those put to the Masterton tradespeople. The replies were equally satisfactory and are as follow : —■
1. QUESTION —What effect, if any, has No-License had on your business?
ANSWER —24 said a good effect or business had not suffered.
5 said a bad effect.
7 were under new proprietary and could make no comparison
36
2. QUESTION —What effect has No-License had on public order and the general moral tone ?
ANSWER—26 said good effect.
2 said a bad effect.
4 said no effect at all.
4 were indefinite.
36
3. QUESTION —Would it, in your opinion, be to the best interests of the town to have Licenses restored ?
Answer —25 said No.
7 said Yes.
4' were indefinite.
36
NOTE —Although the question was not directly put 26 of the above said they favoured Dominion Prohibition.
(Three shopkeepers refused to answer any of the above questions.)
299
“THE TRADE ” PAGE.
T. DWAN, of Wellington, in theS.M. Herald said “ Drinking is carried on undetected in private houses (in Masterton). Under License, when a man had too many drinks he was snapped up by the police and run in, but now he can sleep it off in his own private home.”
(Perhaps Mr Dwan is in a better position to judge of home drinking in Mastertcn than our local doctors.) —Ed.
“ The Church and the Convent are the only two places in Masterton where you can’t get liquor,” said a clergyman in Bega, N.S.W. (But he didn’t speak the truth) —Ed.
“ Prohibition (at Masterton) has created the sly-grog shop which turns out vice and crime as freely as dirt flies before the broom.” —(Tribune). (How, then, are we to account for the enormous reduction in Court cases) —Ed.
“In his heart every business man knows that the number of farmers who once came to town (Masterton) has dropped by 50 per cent.”—(Tribune). (It is very funny that they have not been missed.) —Ed. •
“ Liquor is consumed by persons in prohibited districts who would never think of drinking it but for the fact that it is prohibited.” — Sydney Fairplay, (Might tell us whether the law against theft makes people steal.) —Ed.
The “Sydney Evening News” of April 28th, in referring to the Conference of the N.S. Wales Licensed Victuallers’ Association, says : —“The opinion of Mr. T. H. Nixon (proprietor of the Metropolitan Hotel, Wanganui), who is regarded as an authority on the No-License question is that Local Option in the country he hails from is an absolute failure.” In speaking to the Conference Mr, Nixon said “ I don’t think one individual town can say it has benefited by it. As regards the town of Masterton it is only about 3 or 4 weeks ago that a NoLicense party started a campaign there and called a public meeting. One of the chief supporters who had helped to carry No-License got upon the platform and said he had found out what a distinct failure No-License teas, and he publicly retracted every word he had previously said in favor of carrying No-License .” The above tissue of lies refers to Mr Bedford’s meeting in the open air when Mr. Eton declared “ No-License to be ‘a perfect failure’.” If Mr. Eton was ever a supporter of No-License the fact was quite unknown to us, and to put it mildly he had rather a peculiar way of showing favor or giving help.
The Hall Mark.
“ Masterton under No-License is a decided failure and the concensus of opinion is that restoration will be carried at the coming poll.”—T. Dwan, in the S. M. Herald. (We shall see later.) —Ed.
300
THE ABSTAINERS' PAGE
Teetotallers are in splendid company just now, the present Lord Mayor of London being one, whilst in the political world the Prime Minister of Australia and Premiers Verren, Murray, Kidston and McGowan are all total abstainers.
. Grit. I abstain from alcoholic drinks because I would excel as a golfer—Gray. As an oarsman, Hanlon says abstain ; as a swimmer, Webb says abstain ; as an inventor, Edison says abstain ; as an orator. Bright says abstain ; as a missionary, Livingstone says abstain ; as a doctor, Richardson says abstain ; as a preacher, Farrar says abstain ; our prisons, poorhouses and asylums repeat the cry, abstain.” —Grit.
MARK TWAIN said, “ As far as my experience goes wine is a clog to the pen, not an inspiration. I have never seen the time when I could write to my satisfaction after drinking even one glass of wine.”
BERLIN, November 21, 1910.
In opening the Elenburg Naval College to-day the Kaiser declared that the next war would be won by the nation with the smallest liquor bill. “ All we want,” said the Emperor, “ are well-grounded religions convictions and temperance as our chief virtues.” The Kaiser added that a good fighting man must be good, and that fighting was physically impossible for those who drank to excess.
“Brewing (said Doctor Johnson) is not a mere question of a few vats, pans and barrels, but the potentiality of growing rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Out of twenty shillings spent in the intoxicating drug, the materials to make which cost only 2/5, the exchequer gets 4/7, whilst the traffickers, wholesale and retail, pocket 13/- out of the twenty. The drinkers get poverty, disease and degradation.”
“ The hands of the Liquor traffic are soiled with the blood of many victims, it has polluted politics, outraged humanity and is a national crime and disgrace and is absolutely incapable of doing anything clean and straightforward.’’-^-Grit.
The Liquor Bar.
A bar to Heaven, a door to Hell:
Whoever named it, named it well!
A bar to manliness and wealth,
-A door to want and broken health.
A bar to honour, pride and fame ;
A door to sin and grief and shame ;
A bar to hope, a bar to prayer ;
A door to darkness and despair.
A bar to honoured, useful life ;
A door to brawling, senseless strife;
A bar to all that’s true and brave ;
A doorway to a pauper’s grave.
A bar to joy that home imparts ;
A door to tears and aching hearts ;
A bar to Heaven, a door to Hell :
Whoever named it, named it well.
“ ANON.”
301
What's Wrong with Masterton?
“ The Wairarapa Daily Times ” on March 17th last, in an article under the above heading, said “ There is something seriously wrong with the town, and few realise this better than the unhappy business people who reside here . . . no really new business has been established . . . during the past twelve months, but on the other hand some 14 shops have within that time put up their shutters,” (here follow the names of 17 firms who are alleged to have retired from business or are about to do so.) “We are not attempting to level any charge against No-License . . . We would like to know if it is possible to ascertain what has caused such serious depression. Mr Bedford might offer an explanation.”
The following evening, Saturday, March 18th, Mr Bedford (who was visiting Masterton in the interests of No-License), replied to the paper’s question in the open air in the presence of one of the biggest gatherings the town has seen for years. The reply was a crushing’ one, the paper in its next issue making what was generally recognised as the most graceful retreat possible under the •circumstances. The meeting was of the noisiest possible kind, an organised opposition being determined that Mr Bedford should not be heard, yelled, hooted and howled, but never silenced him. He had his say, and said it well. After Mr Bedford’s meeting had closed and he had left the ground, Mr Cameron, the anti-Chinese agitator, mounted the platform and harangued the crowd, the burden of his cry being for “good grog.” Before stepping from the platform he icalled for a show of hands for those in favor of restoration of licenses and declared it carried unanimously. This was described as a resolution, and coupled with a very misleading report of the whole proceedings, was sent through the Press Association.
His Worship the Mayor, Mr J. M. Coradine, presided at a monster meeting in the Town Hall the following night, when Mr Bedford addressed a thoroughly representative Masterton audience. After the address Mr James McGregor, senr., proposed, and Mr C. E. Daniell seconded, “ THAT THIS VAST ASSEMBLY OF MASTERTON CITIZENS DECLARES NO-LICENSE TO BE A Magnificent Success, and is in the Best and Highest Interests OF THIS COMMUNITY.” The resolution was unanimously carried with acclamation.”
“ What's Wrong with Masterton ?”
“ The Wairarapa Daily Times ” in its leader of July Ist, referring to our Second Annual Report, says “Mr Bridges produced a large number of statements from local commercial men last evening, the great majority of whom said that No-License had not had a detrimental effect on their respective businesses; and he also brought forward an imposing array of figures to prove that the abolition of public-houses had been conducive to the material welfare of this community. His accumulation of evidence to show that No-License has effected a moral oleaning-up in the town may be regarded as overwhelming and convincing.” AND THUS “ THE DAILY TIMES ” OF JULY IST ANSWERS ITS OWN ■Query of March 17th.
27
“The Vanguard ” says:
We publish in full Mr. Bridges’ Annual Report on the occasion of the second anniversary of the Masterton No-License victory. Our own by-gone connection with that town, .and tke fact that we were closely identified in the struggle against the liquor power there, when its citizens were cursed to an enormous degree by the drink habit, lends for us a special interest to the report of present conditions. The struggles we have witnessed on the part of men who sought vainly to escape drink’s fetterdom ; the stories we have listened to from drink-robbed wives and children; the financial wreckage we have witnessed in case after case, where men started in promising business positions ; the burial services we have conducted over the bodies of men slain by the liquor traffic, all throng upon us, and we fancy that if we had heard Mr Eton, the chemist, say that No-License was a perfect failure, we could have given that gentleman an answer that would have more than satisfied him. By the way would he kindly give us a definition of “ a perfect failure,” a round square, and a perfect fault ? Evidently the critic’s language is an index to his methods of thought. We congratulate our Masterton comrades upon the splendid demonstration, the convincing summary of existing conditions, and the testimony their Secretary was able to present. It is evident that the meeting, with its speeches and report, produced a profound impression on the community. Both the “Wairarapa Age” and the “Wairarapa Daily ” admit that the evidence produced by Mr. Bridges as to the good wrought, both financial and moral, to the town, is overwhelming and convincing.
Winzenberg Queen St. Masterton No-License League Executive,
SITTING (Left to Right)—Mr Thos. Dixon, Mr D. McGregor (President) Mr Chas. Ibbetson (Secretary).
STANDING —Cr. J. C. Ewington, Mr G.M. Boss, Mr Jabez Bridges (Organiser) Cr. Alex Donald, Mr O. N. C. Pragnell.
303
The Father of the Fight.
Our President.
Winzenberg Photo Mr Duncan McGregor, Jun.
Mr James McGregor
who has been actively engaged in Temperance Reform Work for over fifty years, is one of the best known, most highly respected and most popular men in the Wairarapa. He is a most devoted Christian worker whose life motto has been “ Others.”
wasaour leader when the battle was won and has been President of the Masterton No-License League for several years ; his business acumen, sound judgment and whole-souled devotion to the cause has won for him the affection of our people who all look upon him as the “ worthy son of a worthy father.”
Our Organiser.
Mr Jabez Bridges
Organiser of the successful campaign of 1908, and Author of this Booklet.
Winzenberg Queen St.
ASHBURTON UNDER NO-LIGENSE.
A Pamphlet compiled by a resident of 34 years, under the auspices of the Ashburton No-License Council, and published by the New Zealand Alliance.
AN EFFECTIVE REFORM.
The information herein contained has been compiled with the object of meeting numerous enquiries concerning the working of No-License in the Ashburton Electorate; and while it is not claimed to be in any way a complete statement of the position, the figures and remarks are guaranteed authentic and reliable.
ASHBURTON NO-LICENSE COUNCIL OFFICIALS.
PRESIDENT — Rev. W. J. Elliott, Havelock Street SECRETARY— Rev. T. R. B. Woolloxall, Wakanui Road TREASURER— Mr. F. Fekriman, Wills Street
LITERATURE COMMITTEE
Revs. W. J. Elliott (Convener), T. R. B. Woolloxall, Ja*. I nos, Messrs. F. W. Greenwood. W. Harding, and W. J. Brown (Organiser).
""lITfH UMMIMTON
ASHBURTON
UNDER NOLICENSE.
FACTS—WITH OPINIONS.
Compiled for, and Issued by, The New Zealand Alliance.
Prior to the 1908 Local Option Poll, a small pamphlet was issued containing “ Pacts ” relative to the financial, social, and other conditions of Ashburton under No-License. There is every reason to believe that the publication served the purpose of removing erroneous impressions regarding the Electorate, and of displaying the true position to friend and foe.
So unscrupulous, however, are the methods of the advocates for License, that their persistent falsehoods, combined with misrepresentation, still mislead electors elsewhere, who discover, when it is too late, that they have been the victims of “ bluff ” ; and this in spite of Government, local bodies, and Companies returns, and in face of the district’s unabated prosperity.
A re-statement of the position, with facts and figures brought up to date, where possible, is therefore desirable. The greatest care has been exercised to ensure accuracy, and, especially where figures are given, the compiler challenges dispute.
With this “ Foreword," the “Tests” and information herein contained are submitted to the thoughtful consideration of intelligent and unbiassed readers of the Dominion and Commonwealth,
3
ASHBURTON—Town and Country.
The Granary of New Zealand.
Chrittchurch “ Press, ” sth May. 1911
Under the above heading, the Christchurch “Press,” of sth May, 1911, published a descriptive article of five columns relative to the rise and progress of Ashburton. The following excerpts provide an appropriate introduction to this pamphlet, especially as they (unintentionally) contradict the base libel circulated by the Liquor party, that Ashburton is in a state of decay, if not absolute ruin.
“. . . They (the pioneers) wrought and toiled and prevailed over Gargantuan difficulties, and the present state of the town and surrounding country is the most fitting and expressive monument to their labours that can be imagined. It was a common practice for travellers to make the north bank of the Ashburton river a camping-place, and as they crouched over their camp fire and cooked their simple meal, they probably never imagined that within a stone’s throw almost of where they sat a thriving town would rise, a town that within the comparatively short space of half a century would be second to none of its size in the Dominion for progressiveness.
“. . . Ashburton was constituted a borough in 1878, and business men mechanics, and artisans, flocked to the place. Churches and schools were established, public institutions formed, and the town has never looked back since. In 1890 the population was 1900, the rateable value £17,305, and the total revenue £2406 ; in 1900 the population was 2322, the rateable value £20.682, and total revenue £2718 ; in 1909 the population was 2850, the rateable value £28,133, and total revenue £4852, since when there have been large increases. The town is excellently laid out, and it's cleanly appearance and general desirability cannot fail to impress the visitor very favourably. With an energetic body of men at the head of affairs municipal, it goes without saying that everything about the town is kept in first-rate older. The fine squares in the centre of the town are an admirable example of the gardener’s art, and in one is a statue of the late John Grigg, erected as a slight recognition of the great work he accomplished in forwarding the frozen meat industry.
“ Ashburton’s Domain, of which the townsfolk are justly proud, is probably the best park for any town of the size in the Dominion, It is beautifully laid out with the most picturesque-walks, and has a fine lot of tennis courts (both grass and asphalt), cricket and hockey grounds, bowling greens, a swimming bath, and cycling track, and last, but not least, an ample supply of ever running water brought in from the river. When it is remembered that a comparatively short time ago the place was nothing but a tussock flat, the present state of the Domain is little short of marvellous.”
4
POPULATION OF ASHBURTON.
DETAILS OF THE CENSUS.
BOROUGH.
1911. 1906. Increase.
Ashburton ... ... 2671 2563 108
TOWN DISTRICTS.
1911. 1906. Increase.
Tinwald ... ... ... 539 511 28
Hampstead ... ... ... 1490 1286 204
Allenton ... ... ... 1109 945 164
TOTAL INCREASES.
In Borough and Suburbs ... ... 504
In County, outside Suburbs ... ... 374
POPULATION OF WHOLE COUNTY
In 1911 ... ... ... ... 14,985
In 1906 ... ... ... ... 14,105
Increase ... ... ... ... 8®
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.
STARTLING FIGURES.
The following paragraph appeared in the “ Ashburton Guardian,” of August 29th, 1910 :
“ A good deal of building has been carried on in Ashburton during the East few months. Since the Ist of April, eight new dwellings and four uildings other than dwellings have been erected in the outer area of the borough, while in the inner area, one new building has been erected and one building has been altered. The amount of money represented in new buildings in the outei area is £7lBO, and in the inner area £2BOO : or a total for Ashburton, for a little under 5 months, of £9980.”
And again, the same paper states : " Notwithstanding the fact that a comparatively large number of residences have been erected in the borough and its environs during the past twelve months, there are only two or three empty houses at the present time, and these are old buildings. Several new residents in the town have been obliged to take lodgings on account of their inability to secure suitable houses.”
As a proof that the building trade has been good, attention is drawn to the fact that in that portion of the electorate north of the Rangitata, buildings hare been erected to the value of
£126,386.
5
This includes the work done by local builders only, during the last three years. To get a correct return it would be necessary to add to the above figures many thousands of pounds worth of work done by the outside contractors, the amount of whose tenders are not available.
Buildings, whose value runs into several thousands of pounds, are now in course of erection ; the trade is very busy, and all men are fully employed indeed, at the moment of writing, more men are required to cope with the work in hand.
Tested by Report of Popular Building Society,
The Ashburton Permanent Building and Investment Society’s Synopsis of Business -for the Years named:—
Deposits.
Year.
Total Loans end of Year.
New Loans during Year.
£ £ £
1901 62,398 14,549 42,102
1902 69,154 21,774 45,775
1907 99,252 31,340 72,563
1908 ... ... 111,884 35,109 78,887
1909 116,762 14,412 83,243
1910 ... 100,621 12,509 69’.863
1911 116,163 36,046 91,319
Total £676,234 £165,739 £488,752
At the Society’s 1910 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Chairman (Mr. Hugo Friedlander) said : —“ Referring to the figures in the balancesheet, they would see that there had been a very considerable reduction in the Society’s business, this being largely due to the fact that considerable loans had been paid off.”
GAS CONSUMPTION.
UNIQUE EVIDENCE OF PROSPERITY.
In the days of License there were six (6) Hotels within the Borough of Ashburton. Bearing in mind the number of rooms lit by gas. and the long hours during which it would be burning, the Manager and Shareholders of the Gas Company might naturally expect a marked reduction in consumption when the six houses lost their licenses. But the Borough’s prosperity has been so remarkable that, in spite of the above consideration, there has bee« a surprising increase in the consumption of ga*.
i
Compare the following figure* :
UNDER LICENSE.
Year 1900-01 ... consumption 5,121,500 cubic feet.
Year 1901-02 ... „ 5,579,600 cubic feet.
UNDER NO-LICENSE.
Year 1908-9 ... consumption 9,782,100 cubic feet
Year 1909-10 ... „ 10,290,000 cubic feet
These figures are full of interest, and are all the more evidence of dis tinct progress when it is noted that one firm which was a large consumer has. since 1906, installed its own gas-producing plant, forty-two places now use electric light, and several acetylene gas. If there were no other evidence of prosperity available, this illustration might be taken as conclusive.
Ashburton’s Prosperity Tested by one Influential Mercantile Company.
SALES OF MERCHANDISE ONLY.
1902—Under License ... ... ... £33.210
1908 —Under No-License ... ... £59.451
1909 —Under No-License ... ... £61,572
1910—Under No-License ... . . £67,913
In view of the magnitude and variety of this huge concern, it would be no matter of surprise if a number of smaller shops were compelled to close their doors. Yet, in spite of this vigorous competitor for the patronage of Ashburton farmers and others, there are no fewer places of business in the town, but considerably more than in the days of License.
Now, compare the above with the reckless statement of Mr. Lesina. M.L.A., whose report on No-License in Ashburton appears in “ Fairplay " (Licensed Victuallers Journal) of July 22nd, 1909 The workers go to the license towns to spend their earnings. The farmers go there for their holidays, and bring back three months’ supplies of groceries, &c.” What value can be placed on Mr. Lesina’s so-called “ Independent Inquiry ’ when bis statements are proved to be so contrary to fact ?
TESTED BY RATEABLE VALUES.
ASHBURTON BOROUGH.
These are Rental Values, not Capital Values
1902-3 Under License ... ... ... £22,613
1908-9 Under No-License ... ... £28.133
1909-10 Under Xo-License ... ... £30,033
1910-11 Under No-License ... ... £31.367
1911-12 Under No-License ... ... £32,200
The "Ashburton Guardian" of 2nd March, 1911, in commenting on the increase of rateable values, remarked that “ the increase is mostly due to the
7
erection of new business premises and residences, and improvements and additions to old buildings." In a subsequent issue the same journal states : " At last evening s meeting of the Borough Council a member asked a question regarding outstanding rates. The Mayor said he was pleased to say that for the last seven years there had been no outstanding rates worth speaking about. The sum of £3 would cover the whole amount lost in that time.”
ASHBURTON SUBURBS.
Hampstead Town District.
(A Residential Area, where many of Ashburton’s thrifty wage earners have their Cottage Homes).
1902-3 —Under License ... ... ... £66,068
1908-9—Under No-License ... ... £139,705
1910-11—Under No-License ... ... £145^261
Upper Ashburton Road District.
1902-3—Under License ... ... £758,069
1907-B—Under No-License ... ... £1,096.611
1908-9 —Under No-License ... ... £1,099,518
1909-10—Under No-License ... ... £1,11)5,079
Allenton Ward.
(Another Prosperous Residential Suburb).
1902-3—Under License ... ... £63,289
1907-B—Under No-License ... ... £123,652
1908-9 —Under No-License ... ... £126,652
1909-10 —Under No-License ... ... £129,652
Agricultural and Pastoral Association.
The revenue of the Ashburton Agricultural and Pastoral Association for year ended 31st December, 1910, was £lB3l 3s. 9d.. which amount includes £4OB ss. 3d. for gross gate money, fees, &c. taken at the Winter Show There is no evidence here of financial depression. And no liquor booths !
The Churches, Friendly Societies, Social and Philanthrophic Bodies.
The Churches, philanthrophic movements. Friendly Societies, and other kindled institutions, have shared in the blessings accompanying No-License.
For instance : In the month of October, 1900, some members of St. Stephen’s (Anglican) Church evolved a scheme which was nothing less than a proposal to wipe off the whole Church debt —£1150—by 31st October, 1910. On 14th November, 1910. the Finance Committee was able to present a balance-sheet showing £1230 7s. gross receipts. Of this amount nearly £7OO was from direct subscriptions, and a reference to (he analysis of donations shows that 275 were for sums of £2 and under. Allowing for commendable self-denial, there must be a considerable amount of ready cash available for the congregation of a country church to accomplish so much in one \ear
3
This is further emphasised by the fact that the ordinary revenue of St. Stephen’s was £lOO in excess of the previous year.
During the three years ended 31st December, 1910, there yvas quite a plethora of special efforts to raise funds for various bodies, these efforts mostly taking the shape of bazaars. From such figures as are available, the aggregate reached about £3500.
At its last quarterly meeting (April, 1911) the Methodist (Wesleyan) Circuit Stewards reported a credit balance of £2O on the ordinary 7 work of the Circuit, and the year's donations towards the Home Mission Fund totalled £7O, being a record for the Circuit in its efforts in this direction.
The Trustees of Baring Square (Methodist) Church have recent!' decided to erect a new Parsonage at a cost of from £BOO to £lOOO.
CHARITABLE AID.
CAPITAL VALUE.
£
County ... ... ... ... 6,647,194
Borough ... ... ... ... 411.128
Hampstead ... ... ... 134,244
Tinwald ... ... ... ... 77,693
£7.270,2.69
Hie above figures represent £498 16s. per head of population. On 31st May, 1911, there were only 17 persons m the whole County receiving Charitable Aid.
No-License and Consumption of Drink.
No sane person contends that the law of New Zealand forbidding embezzlement and arson is a guarantee that no employer will be robbed, or that no building will be set fire to with malicious or avaricious motives. Nor does the temperance reformer argue that No-License conditions will bring about universal abstinence from intoxicating liquors. But from the figures stated in an editorial of “The Lyttelton Times.” of 17th March. 1911. and appended hereto, it is proved beyond question that the decrease of drink consumption in Ashburton is very definite and gratifying. The figures show the comparison between the drink, per elector, consumed in the Dominion as a whole, and in the No-License area of Ashburton :
Beer. Wine and Spirits.
gals. gals.
Dominion ... ... 18.00 1.71
Ashburton ... ... 2.47 .76
or nearly 16 gallons per head less of beer and nearly one gallon less per head of wine and spirits.
The figures worked out by Mr. J. M’Cotnbs are interesting and instructive. From his article on " Does No-License Diminish Drunkenness ?” appearing in the “ Lyttelton Times ” of 12th April, 1911, the cost of intoxicating liquors on a population basis is as under :
Dominion ... ... £3 13s. lid. per head.
License Areas ... ... £4 3s. 1-fd. per head.
No-License Areas ... 18«. Old. per head.
9
MAGISTRATE’S COURT RETURNS.
CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
190*2 —Under License ... ... ... 117
1910—Under No-License ... ... ... 61
Of the 61 convictions for 1910, no less than 35 were persons who were either arrested on arrival of trains, or who procured the liquor outside the Ashburton No-License area.
For the six months ending 30th June, 1911, at the S.M. Court, Ashburton, there were only *24 convictions for drunkenness, and of these 11 were arrested on arrival "of trains ; 7 obtained liquor from adjoining electorates ; and 6 presumably obtained their requirements in the town.
It would be interesting to know—first, why drunken men are allowed to travel by train ; and second, why these men are always put off at Ashburton, in preference to Temuka (south), and Rakaia (north), seeing that the greater number are not residents of Ashburton.
The following article, “ Drink : How and Whence Obtained,” from the “Ashburton Guardian” of 12th January, 1911. will emphasise the above query :
DRINK: HOW AND WHENCE OBTAINED.
[“ Ashburton Guardian ,” January 12th , 1911].
” During the hearing of a charge of drunkenness at the Magistrate’s Court this* morning. Sergeant Fouhy, in preferring the charge, explained to the presiding justice (Mr. W. W. White) that the accused had arrived in Ashburton by train in a drunken state. "1 wish it to be understood, said the Sergeant" ** that the majority of men who are arrested for drunkenness come into the town from license areas in a more or less drunken condition, and they frequently bring liquor in with them, and then become fully intoxicated.” There are people in Ashburton (continued Sergeant Fouhy) who, on seeing drunken men in the streets, run away with the idea that such men procure their liquor in Ashburton, and indirectly cast a reflection on the police for lack of vigilance in detecting the places from which the liquor is obtained. Quite a number of men, who were brought before the Court for drunkenness, were put off the trains by guards at Ashburton, and were either arrested on the platform or a few blocks away.
MORE STRAIGHT TALK FROM THE BENCH.
[“ Ashburton Guardianloth July, 1911 J.
In passing sentence on two men brought before him, and charged with drunkenness, on 10th July, 1911.
“ . . . Mr. White, commented on the fact that these people seemed to think that they could go and spend their money on drink at Chertsey and come back and parade the streets of Ashburton to bring discredit on the town. He was beginning to believe that this to some extent had been stopped, but the two cases under notice were recurrences of the practice. Some people seemed to delight in going down to Chertsey and getting drunk, and coming back and unloading in Ashburton. Any future cases of this kind, he concluded, would be dealt with as severely as the law allowed.”
313
PROHIBITION ORDERS.
1901-2—Under License ... ... ... 34
1910-11 —Under No-License ... ... ... 13
And only three of the thirteen offenders were residents of the Ashburton electorate.
It is important to remember that the Ashburton Police District includes a large portion of the Selwyn Electorate, which contains a number of licensed houses.
SLY-.GROG SELLING.
As a result of the drastic provisions of “ The Licensing Act, 1910,” relative to the sale and ‘'storage” of intoxicating liquors in No-License districts, and mainly through the vigilance of the police, the illicit sale of alcohol in Ashburton is almost a negligible quantity. To use the phrase occurring in the columns of the local newspaper— 11 The sly-grog sellers in the Ashburton County are almost as extinct as the moa.”
During the New South Wales campaign of 1910. some ridiculous statements were made by supporters of license, in connection with the number of convictions for sly-grog selling in Ashburton since the No-License regime commenced on Ist July, 1903. For purposes of record, it may be stated that to 31st December, 1910, the total is 66. The largest number was in 1904, when there were 19 convictions ; in 1910 there was not a solitary conviction.
Coronation Festivities
One noticeable feature m connection with the Coronation festivities in Ashburton was the almost entire absence of signs of intemperance. The behaviour of the crowd of people was exceptionally good, and this fact was commented upon by more than one keen observer.”- Ashburton Guardian.” June 24th, 1911.
Result of Visiting a Licensed District,
“ W . S . appeared before Mr. Day, S.M., on a charge of drunkenness while in charge of a horse and trap. S explained that while on a visit to Hethven he had a drink or two. and owing to long abstinence the potent effects of the liquor had become apparent with more than usual rapidity. He was fined 10s., in default forty-eight hours’ imprisoment."— “ Ashburton Guardian.” June 9th, 1911.
The Building Trade,
LATEST SEARCHLIGHT FLASH.
[ li Ashburton Guardian, July Ilth. 1911 ],
'• The building trade in the borough and its environs continues brisk : indeed, it is many years since such a number of houses were in the course of erection as is the case at the present time. All the building contractors have their hands full, and there are indications that the trade will be brisk for some considerable time to come. One noticeable feature in regard to the new works is that in almost every case joed, substantial buildings are being erected—mainly, however, in wood.”
314
SPORT.
ASHBURTON COUNTY RACING CLUB.
All clean, healthy sport, such as cricket, football, tennis, and other outdoor games flourish in Ashburton : and with no liquor booths or bookmakers, the racecourse is a less objectionable quarter than is usual in similar pleasureseeking resorts in other parts of the Dominion. Writing of the local Club’s enterprise, the “ Ashburton Guardian,” of 11th May, 1911, has the following :
“ The Ashburton County Racing Club commenced its Autumn Meeting on the racecourse this afternoon, under the most favourable circumstances, namely, delightful sunny weather, good entries, and, as a whole, a class of horses that, for uniformity, breed, and performance, is rarely seen at a race meeting outside the metropolitan areas. During the past few years the Committee of the Club wisely adopted a progressive policy. All the necessary buildings, such as grandstands, refreshment rooms, judge’s box and horse boxes, were either erected or reconstructed, the track was put in first-class order, while the fencing around the Club's buildings was renovated, and the lawns were properly laid down and sow r n with suitable grasses, with the result that the course, for all practical purposes and convenience. is unquestionably one of the best outside the large centres in the Dominion. In addition to effecting the improvements referred to, the Club substantially increased the stakes, and, what is of even greater importance, the stewards and officials made a wise determination to conduct their meetings in strict accordance with the racing regulations, and in this connection they have been markedly successful. Taking into full consideration the large sum of money expended on the course, and also the considerable and singularly successful efforts of the Club in raising its meetings to a high status, it is satisfactory to note that racehorse owners of the Dominion have, by entering their horses, signified their appreciation of the Club's policy : and this is only as it should be. for the reason that a Club that is guided in its policy by a spirit of true sportsmanship surely merits the fullest and unqualified support of racehorse owners and the racegoing public.”
CONCLUSION.
It will be apparent that no attempt has been made in the foregoing to cover all the various ramifications of the No-License experiment as it is being tested in the Ashburton Electorate. For instance, the fiction concerning increased drinking in the homes vanishes under the searchlight of statistics prepared by Government officials and Mr. M'Combs, while the absence of gross crimes and tragedies, usually associated with hard drinking, demonstrates the highly congenial conditions prevailing in the district. Not only men, but women, victims of the drink habit, have found sanctuary in Ashburton, and so long as circumstances have permitted them to remain in the district, they and their immediate relatives and friends knew somethin" of the experience of him who sang:—“ Then was our mouth filled with laughter and our tongue with singing.”
Residents in the town and suburbs are now exempt from the visits of that type of the " sponging ”* swagger who is ever on the look-out for a job and for ever praying that he will never find it. One of the finest tributes to the No-License regime was given by a prominent official in financial circles, when leaving the district for promotion in another centre : —“ lam personally ignorant of any other town of equal size to Ashburton in the
12
Dominion where my wife could come home at any hour of the night unescorted, without fear of being molested. ’’
Finally, if there are any persons who, in spite of all the numerous testimonies adduced from the Borough finance, building trade, business enterprises, Police Court returns and other sources, to the wonderful success of No-License in the Ashburton Electorate, still persist in denying such evidence, it might be said such persons remind one of what Lord Byron says with regard to Berkeley’s philosophical denial of the existence of matter ; “ When Bishop Berkeley says it is no matter, then tis no matter what he says.”
GERALDINE.
During the re-distribution of seats in 1908, the Southern boundary of the Ashburton Electorate was extended to include Geraldine, and as Restoration was not carried, no licenses to sell alcoholic liquor were granted after June 30th, 1909 The town is located in a very fertile district. A series of fires, a few years ago, caused an unusual activity in the building trade, and among the new buildings erected were the Public School, the Farmers' Co-operative Store, an Anglican Church Hall, a Pr imitive Methodist Church, a new Post Office, and also new bank buildings. Soon, however, the building trade resumed its normal condition, and opponents of No-License seized upon the comparative quietness which was the inevitable result of the “ boom.” as an evidence of retrogression. How very absurd !
Under license more cells were required at the Police Station, and the work was authorised. Under a No-License regime the increased accommodation has not been needed, and one cell has been converted into an office for the local constable.
Most of the business men are well satisfied, and testify that the carrying of No-License has not injured their trade, which, on the contrary, has steadily progressed. Business last Christmas was particularly good. Two tradesmen took £2OO and £l6O respectively more cash than during the previous Christmas.
The accompanying Police Court returns speak for themselves as to the efficacy of No-License in keeping down convictions for drunkenness, and offences generally associated with it.
RETURN OF CONVICTIONS AT GERALDINE COURT.
Nature of Offence. 1908. 1909. 1910.
(License).
(6 mos. License and 6 mos. No-License).
No License).
Breach of Peace ... 3 1
Breach of Licensing Acts ... 10 9 4
Drunkenness ... ... 20 12 2
Lunacy ... ... 3 1
Maintenance ... ... 5
Obscene Language ... 7 3 1
Prohibition Orders ... 12 4
Resisting Police ... 1 2
Theft ... ... 2
Wife Desertion ... 1
Wilful Damage ... 1
Attempted Suieide ... 1
57 38 10
13
MUNICIPAL RATES.
Compiled by a Fellow of the Incorporated Institute of Accountants of New Zealand).
The Ashburton Municipal Rate has probably given rise to fiercer controversy than any other phase of the No-License experiment in that Electorate.
Recognizing that it must be a most difficult matter to deal effectually with the many impudent misrepresentations that have been, and are again likely to be made by the Liquor Party, both in the Dominion and the Commonwealth, it has been thought expedient to deal with the matter.
This article has, therefore, been prepared from the most reliable sources of information, with the utmost care, and is considered to be a judicial, and entirely authoritative statement of the position.
The Liquor Party, with its unenviable capacity for advertising absolutely incorrect and misleading statements on the eve of an election, has published far and wide the bald statement that the Ashburton Municipality increased its rates from a Is. in the £ basis under License conditions, to a 2s. in the £ basis under No-License conditions. With certain available and reasonable explanations of the true causes leading up to such increase—the latter has always been admitted by the No-License Party; but it is absolutely wrong to say, as the Liquor Party has said, that the increase is entirely due to loss of revenue under the No-License regime .
The plain facts regarding this increase are summarized as under
(1) Excise licenses, between and including the years 1899 and 1903, fluctuated between £295 (the lowest amount) and £3Ol (the highest amount). The annual rateable value of the hotel properties in the Ashburton Borough during the last year of License was £1420, and during the first year of No-License was £427. There was, therefore, a reduced rateable value of £993 on hotel properties during the first year of No-License. Nevertheless, even with that loss, the difference between the total Borough rateable values in those years was a reduction under No-License conditions of only £139. There was, therefore, an actual increase in the letting values of Borough property (other than hotels) during the first year of NoLicense of £854. The revenue collected from liquor licenses since 1899 (inclusive) has been :
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903
£297 £297 £295 £3Ol £295
The actual loss to the Municipality directly attributable to the carrying of No-License was £344 13s, representing (and mark this) only a shade over 3J4d in the £ of the 1903 rateable values.
The Liquor Party would have you believe that the No-License experiment resulted in an annual increase of rates equal to Is. in the £of rateable values. Can you believe such a story now ?
317
(3) It was frequently contended, in the days of License, that the Is. in the £ rate was not adequate to the requirements of the Borough. That rate was continued so long as it was, only by neglecting pressing maintenance and new works. So long as there was an absence of enterprise, and so long as the Ashburton burgesses were satisfied with a miserably slow rate of progress in their Municipal works, so long could their Municipality carry on its operations on a shilling rate.
(3) The change, probably, had its origin in 1900-1, when a loan of £7500 was raised for general purposes. The expenditure was spread over the years 1900, 1901, and 1902, and chiefly represented new Municipal buildings, channelling, reading and footways. It is, however, an undoubted fact, that in the year 1901 (under License), when the first instalment of £5O was set aside to create a Sinking Fund for the redemption of the £7500 loan, the expenditure out of revenue on account of streets and other similar maintenance, was, by a very considerable sum, the lowest annual expenditure from and including the year 1898-9, down to and including the year 1910-11.
(4) This brings us to the point that it is necessary to remind the electors of the fact that the Liquor Party has forgotten (and what a convenient memory and conscience that Party hast, to inform them that Municipal improvements out of Borough revenue—as distinguished from borrowed money—have at no time been greater than under the No-License regime.
Let us consider a few of the several classes of Borough revenue expenditure, with a view to getting a bird’s eye view of the facts prior to the discontinuance 'of Licenses, and subsequent thereto. In our arrangement of the figures we will allow 1903 to stand alone, for the reason that in that year Licenses existed up to the 30th June.
Expenditure on Streets, Footways, Channelling, Formation and Maintenance.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£653 £667 £429 £893 £696 £7lB £943 £877 £912 £1043 £958 £ll2l
v T / Under License.
v Under No-License
Take another class, and it will be recognised that it lies at the very root of the public convenience :
STREET LIGHTING.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£l9B £lBO £6 £285 £269 £239 £240 £272 £290 £299 £265 £346 Y / \. y
Under License.
Under No-Licens(
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£25 £5 £l2 £407 £l7 £ll £8 £2 £74 £92 £662 £lO4 V J v
, j Under License.
Under No-License.
15
Consider another class of expenditure, both as an expenditure out of Borough revenue and also from all sources, it is instructive :
THE MUNICIPAL PARK.
Commendable enterprise has been shown by the Municipality in the development of this beautiful Park, which is famous from one end of the Dominion to the other.
Expenditure Charged to Borough Revenue Account.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£194 £235 £l7l £394 £152 £lB5 £126 £l6B £270 £250 £283 £296
Under License.
Under No-License
Total Annual Expenditure on the Park from all Sources.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£278 £414 £329 £555 £253 £262 £431 £556 £585 £585 £6OO £643
Under License.
Under No-License,
Under which set of conditions, those of License, or those of No-License, has the development of the Park been the greater ? Ask the Liquor Party to account for the greater expenditure and activity under No-License in view of the oft-repeated lies that Ashburton “ is going to the dogs ” under No-License.
ANNUAL MUNICIPAL INCOME FROM RATES.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
11002 £1027 £989 £1163 £ll5O £2399 £2425 £1874 £1987 £2370 £2450 £2657
The annual rate was Is. in the £ of rental values, to and including 31st March, 1903 ; 2s. in the £ from and including Ist April, 1903, to and including 31st March, 1905; Is. 6d. in the £ from Ist April, 1905, to 31st March, 1907 ; and has remained at Is. 9d. in the £ from the latter time down to the present.
Another very important Borough work, maintained out of revenue, is
THE STREET WATER SUPPLY.
It is probably quite within the mark to say that the Ashburton street surface water supply is the finest in the Dominion. There are 19 miles of concrete channelling, along which an excellent supply of clean water is continuously running for sanitary purposes, and also as an auxiliary to the High Pressure Supply, for fire prevention purposes. Study the annual expenditure under this heading—it is instructive.
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£370 £243 £46 £213 £316 £321 £336 £323 £350 £342 £366 £341
Under License,
Under No-License.
Take another class of expenditure:—
SALARIES.
“The Living Wage.”
Do No-License conditions under this head compare favourably with License conditions? Study the figures, and you will be convinced :
1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
£259 £250 £lB7 £3OO £353 £334 £366 £360 £372 £371 £4OO £409
Under License.
Under No-License.
U
There is yet another class of expenditure, which the Liquor Party has left severely alone. Consider the extremity “Bung” must be in when he has continuously distorted, and will continue to distort, the truth about Ashburton. Did he ever tell the people that the loan of £7500 was expended under ‘ License ” conditions, and (oh, the irony of it 1) what is of vastly more importance, that the loan, with its attendant annual interest, is being paid under “No-License ” conditions? Here are the figures :
1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910
* BVW -s-crv/i li/VO -LUV/J7 iUIU Sinking Fund £5O £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO £lOO
Ann’l Interest £262 £338 £338 £338 £338 £338 £338 £338 £338
Again, under the License regime, the Park pavilion was a disgrace to the Borough ; of no use to those spectators who attended the sports meetmgs held in the Park, and of little use to athletes.
Under the No-License regime, an-up-to-date and imposing pavilion has been erected, serving every practical purpose which a pavilion should serve.
The cost of the building, together with its net annual interest, is being iquidated out of Borough revenue.
ANNUAL RATEABLE VALUES.
There has been a substantial and continuous increase in the rateable value of property in the Borough. The following figures, which represent , e rateable values for the several years, will prove to a demonstration that rVfSn- '? ss ln rateable values on hotel properties, which left a decrease of £139 in those values for 1904, was reduced to £l3 in 1905, and was totally wiped out m the increasing values from and including April, 1906.
1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911
A . £ . £ £ £ £ £ £ £ f
22,613 24,100 23,961 25,081 267251 26,711 28,133 30,033 31367 32,200
Lioe ?t e .'. , . No-Licens.
* This fall in values is explained as follow;
£
Value of Hotel Properties included in 1903 Valuations ... 1420
1904 „ ... 427
Reduction in Letting Values in 1904 ... *-qq«
CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER.
Can any person, whatever capital he may have invested in brewery shares, after a careful survey of every class of expenditure shown above contend, with any show of decency, or honour, that the increase of rates under the No-License regime has been the practical outcome of the abolition ot licenses heretofore existing in the Borough. No sane person (not even one who wishes to increase his purchases from liquor merchants) expects to enjoy greater facilities, improved Municipal works, or healthier or cleaner conditions without an increased expenditure. No-License was ushered in, in the Ashburton Borough at a time when there was stagnation, and a lamentable lack of enterprise in public matters, produced by reason of the fact that the Municipality had been run on a starvation rate, and for every penny of increased rates, the ratepayers of Ashburton are in the possession of Municipal enjoyments which did not obtain under
A SHILLING IN THE £ RATE.
Ashburton, July 18, 1911
WHAT ABOUT THE REVENUE?
A Brief Review of the Fiscal Aspect of the Liquor Question
BY A. R. ATKINSON
Wellington :
The New Zealand Alliance, 113 Willis Stbeet
19 11.
W. J. Lankahear, Printer, Lambton Quay, Wellin
322
WHAT ABOUT THE REVENUE?
Chapter I.
DEFICIT OR SURPLUS.
The idea that the abolition of the liquor traffic will involve the country in any financial embarrassment or loss is a delusion which will not stand the test of half an hour’s disinterested analysis. The delusion is encouraged by our thinking and talking of “ the revenue derived from the liquor traffic.” Nobody is so unreasonable as to talk of the revenue derived from the merchant or the grocer, because it is clearly recognised that the taxation on the dutiable goods in which they deal is not paid by them but by their customers. They merely collect the tax—they do not pay it. So it is with the liquor-seller. The traffic from which we speak of deriving revenue is the channel, but not the source, of supply. If drink really was the source of supply, the drying of the source would necessarily embarrass our finance. But neither the trade nor the trader is actually the source. The community which keeps them both going pays the revenue, and has the privilege of paying for their keep besides. What does the community pay for liquor ? £8,803,488. And what revenue does it get in return ? £847,275. The liquor-seller collects £847,275 of revenue from the community and charges £2,956,163 for doing so. And we are asked to believe that if this wonderful system of collection were abolished we should be the poorer for the change. It surely does not require a financial genius to see that the country could still raise the revenue and be nearly £3,000,000 to the good.
Liquor Expenditure Mostly Unproductive
There are, of course, limits to this form of argument. It can only be applied to what the economists call unproductive expenditure. If money be spent on house-building, the money circulates, labour is employed, but there is also a house to show for it. Expenditure which
creates this second value is called productive expenditure. If, however, the money be spent on fireworks, the money remains, but the rest has gone up in smoke. An expenditure which results in one value only is known as unproductive expenditure. Fireworks supply the economists with the stock example of this class of expenditure; but firewater is in the same position. Bearing this aspect of liquor expenditure in mind, we accordingly see that from the revenue standpoint the following parallel is not unjust:—
If the country be accustomed to throw four million pounds into the sea every year and the Government to catch one of the millions as it falls, how much poorer would the country be if it stopped throwing the four millions away ?
In what sense Liquor Expenditure is Productive.
But this illustration concedes far too much. Throwing money into the sea is good financing in comparison with investing it in the liquor traffic. In the technical sense of the economists the traffic may be unproductive ; but everybody knows that it produces a perennial crop of drunkenness, crime, insanity, pauperism, disease and death. With the moral aspect of this hideous catalogue we are not now concerned, but let us endeavour to work out the loss that it represents to the community in pounds, shillings and pence. Exact computation is unfortunately impossible. It is only the grosser and more public manifestations of these evils that can be measured, and even then not to their ultimate consequences. We can for instance estimate what the imprisonment of a criminal costs the country directly, but the indirect cost involved in the loss of his own and perhaps of his victim’s labour, the maintenance of his family by the public, and the incidental expenses of magistrates, judges, lawyers, policemen, jailors, jurors and -witnesses defies exact computation. The figures that follow, being limited to the officially recorded expenditure, will be accurate as far as they go, but must represent but a fraction of the total cost of the liquor traffic.
What Liquor Costs in Crime, etc.
In the schedule given below the figures in the first column are taken from the latest official returns available. The proportion of the expenditure which is in each case debited to liquor is stated in the second column. The proportion will be found in each case to be less than the estimate of some of the very highest authorities in the various departments concerned.* In the case of Charitable Aid, several local estimates put the proportion due to liquor as high as 80 per cent., and Old Age Pensions which are practically Charitable Aid would be treated by some authorities in the same way. To be on the safe side however, I have reduced the proportion by 5 per cent jn the one case and by 30 per cent, in the other. When it is remem-
’For details on this point see pp. 11-lfi of “The Drink Traffic a Blunder,” by the present writer.
4
bered that in these cases the destitution which is due to the intemperance or extravagance not merely of recipients but of those who would have otherwise maintained them is included, the proportions will doubtless be conceded by any competent critic to be well within the mark ;
• The returns in these three cases for 1910-11 not having been fully published, I have used those of the previous year, though it is clear from what has already appeared that both Hospitals and Charitable Aid will show a considerable increase.
Debit and Credit.
The liquor traffic must therefore be debited with £587,768 on account of its contributions to crime, pauperism, &c. Setting that amount off against its contributions to the revenue, we find the result to be as follows :
Cr,
Customs ■£
Spirits ... ... ••• 616,836 TIT* QQQ
Wine ... ... ... 10,888
Ale, Beer, etc. ... ••• 27,159
Excise
Beer ... ... ... 117,493
License Fees ... ... ••• 44,900 847,276
Dr.
Crime, pauperism, etc. ... 587,768
Net balance to be made up if liquor abolished ... ... £259,507
5
325
A 2J per cent. Shortage.
The £1,000,000 which it is suggested that the revenue would be short is thus reduced at one stroke by nearly 75 per cent. The prospective poll-tax of £1 with which the veracious advocates of “ the Trade ” have been endeavouring to alarm us falls to ss. Bd. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the taxpayer would be alarmed at the prospect of having to raise another £259,507 of revenue after the liquor traffic—the Greatest Robber on earth—has lost its license to rob and waste. Even this small amount, however, representing less than 21 per cent, of the estimated revenue for the current year (£10,429,010) would not have to be suddenly provided in a single year. When Dominion Prohibition is carried, it may be regarded as certain that No-License will be carried at the same time in a majority of the districts. But the local vote which might perhaps cut off 40 per cent, of the supply of liquor would come into effect at once, leaving the remaining 60 per cent, to be accounted for four years later when Dominion Prohibition would operate. The problem would thus be to find £lOO,OOO of additional revenue in the first year after the poll, and £150,000 more in the fifth year. It would clearly be an insult to the resources of the country and to the intelligence of its Finance Minister to suppose that the finding of sums representing 1 per cent, and l£ per cent, of its present revenue with an interval of four years between them would cause the faintest inconvenience. It w r ill be easy to show, however, that even this tiny sacrifice will not be needed, but that on the contrary the Treasury will be the richer for the expulsion of the robber w'ithout resorting even temporarily to a pennyworth of extra taxation.
The Money Saved from Liquor would still Circulate.
The value of the beer, wine and spirits on which duty was paid last year was £3,803,488. Prohibition will, therefore, increase the spending power of the people by at least this enormous sum. The increase would really be a million or two more at least owing to the enormous profits that are made by the retailer, but to leave it at the wholesale figure will simplify the comparison that follows, though the liquor side of the case will certainly profit by the concession. Supposing the liquor traffic were abolished, what would happen to this £3,808,438? Two things at any rate may be predicted about it with absolute certainty. In the first place only an infinitesimal part of the money would be spent on anything so unproductive and so destructive as strong drink, for such competitors in these respects as human ingenuity and depravity have been able to devise for it are so friendly in their rivalry as to be co-operators and dependants rather than competitors, and will dwindle instead of gaining strength by its abolition. Secondly, only an infinitesimal part of the money thus released would seek refuge in old stockings or teapots or misers’ chests.
The Money Would Find Productive Channels.
Id other words, practically the whole of the money saved from liquor would go into circulation along other channels, which to the economist no less than to the moralist would be far preferable. Some of it would directly employ labour. Some of it would be invested in agriculture, manufactures and commerce. Practically the whole of it by increasing the amount of money seeking employment would tend to raise wages, lower interest, and promote the wealth and prosperity, and therefore the revenue-producing power, of the people. It is w’orth pointing out in this connexion that the amount lent by the Advances Department last year was £1,200,000, less than one-thirdof the amount that would be freed for investment every year by the abolition of the liquor traffic. Protectionists and Free-traders would doubtless agree that the raising in this way within our own borders of money for local expenditure and investment of a reproductive character would be far more desirable from every point of view than dependence upon the foreign bond-holder or even upon our own Government. But the effect of so salutary a change upon the revenue does not admit of precise demonstration.
Other Articles Pay Duty.
There is, however, a large number of articles in common use, exclusive of strong drink, which contribute to the revenue through the Customs, and the effect on the revenue of an increase in their consumption can be calculated to a penny. I shall therefore for the purpose of this paper, assume that all the money released by the abolition of the liquor traffic will be expended on such articles an assumption which, as already proved, will really underestimate the benefit that will actually result. The following table shows the imports into New Zealand of some of the chief articles of general consumption for the year 1910, and also the Customs duties levied upon them. All these articles are of the kind on which a large part of the £3,803,488 would certainly be spent: —
IMPORTS, 1910.
Value. Duty.
Candles ... ... 87,960 ... 14,866 . . r, t r nAi OAn OQ4
Apparel ... ... 845,201 ... 209,984 T* , T fit 04C IN Qft7
Boots and Shoes ... 245,154 ... 71,987 t\ .aa nit 1 AO 1 ftQ
Drapery ... ... 500,915 ... 100,183
Hardware & Ironm’gy 489,963 ... 89,246 nr, i n r« 04 C\ QQ
Hats and Caps ... 96,188 ... 24,038
Hosiery ... ... 164,206 ... 41,052
Lamps, &c. ... 47,879 ... 11,867 r .... in tcc
Plate and Platedware 90,121 ... 17,565
Textiles 371,573 ... 74,814
Woollens 216,304 ... 48,485
£3,105,409 £698,071
7
Adding these two sums together gives us a total of £3,808,480. The expenditure of that amount on the articles above-mentioned would therefore provide £698,071 in revenue. Now we have already seen that the net effect upon the revenue of the loss of the £8,808,438 spent on strong drink, after allowing for the cost of the crime and other social evils that it produces, is merely to cause a deficit of £259,507. The expenditure of practically the same sum on the articles above mentioned would, by providing a revenue of £698,071, leave the Treasurer with £488,564 to the good.
Not a Deficit, but a Surplus
It will, of course, be said that the articles selected are all direct contributors to the revenue, and that allowance must be made for the uon-dutiable articles upon which the money would in part be spent. The placing of tea and sugar upon the free list within the last few years has certainly brought within the range of this argument two of the articles to the purchase of which the money now spent on drink would be largely diverted. Let us then make no selection at all, but suppose the drink money to be spent equally on all kinds of imported goods, whether they pay duty or not. The figures for the imports of 1910, less specie, are as follow
Imports
Total ... ... ... £16,748,223
Spirits, Beer, &c. ... ... 463,596
Imports, less liquor ... £16,384,627
Duty
On total imports ... ... £2,954,989
On Spirits, Beer, &c. ... 684,882
Duty on Imports, less liquor ... £2,270,107
The total imports, exclusive of liquor and specie, are £16,884,627, and the duty £2,270,107, giving an average duty of 13.86 per cent. The£3,803,438 now spent on liquor would thus, if divided equally among all other imports, yield more than a duty of £461,000, and this amount is £201,498 more than the net shortage of £k.69,507, which has been proved to be all that the abolition of liquor would cause to the revenue. In other words, the alleged deficit of £1,000,000 has been converted into a surplus of more than £200,000.
To put the matter in another way, the expenditure of £2,200,000 on imports of all kinds, other than liquor, without discrimination, representing an increase in consumption of less than 12J per cent., would yield rather more than all the extra revenue requited. There would still be left in the hands of consumers more than £1,600,000 of the money formerly spent on liquor—an amount from which it is certain that the revenue of the country would derive a large additional benefit, while our industries would receive a stimulus to which the experience of the present generation in New Zealand offers no parallel.
Chapter 11.
THE ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.
By figures and reasoning which anybody with very little trouble ■can check for himself, I claim to have shown conclusively the utter absurdity of the alarm with which the liquor-sellers’ fears for their revenues endeavour to inspire us regarding our own. But it may be as well to support the general conclusion by an appeal to authority. The first I shall call will probably be admitted by all to be without a peer in the practical knowledge of modern finance —William Ewart Gladstone.
Mr. Gladstone’s Opinion.
In the year 1881-82, when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a considerable fall in the revenue owing to a decrease in the consumption of spirits ; but even as a financier, Mr. Gladstone could only regard the loss with satisfaction. The Queen’s Speech in 1882 referred to the matter as follows : —“ The growth of the revenue is sensibly retarded by a cause which must in itself be contemplated with satisfaction. I refer to the diminution in the receipts of the Exchequer from the duties on intoxicating liquors.” Still more to the point was his reply to a deputation of brewers, who seem to have been as much concerned about the revenue as the trade is at election times in this country. He said, “ Gentlemen, give me a sober people not wasting their money upon strong drink, and I shall know how to provide my revenue.”
Two Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Sir Stafford Northcote. Mr. Gladstone’s political opponent, and Chancellor of the Exchequer (1874-1880) said: ' I venture to say that the amount of wealth such a change [i.e., a decrease in the consumption of spirits! would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade the amount of revenue now derived from the spirit duty ; and we should not only see with satisfaction a diminution of the revenue from such a source, but we should find in various ways that the Exchequer would not suffer from the losses that it might sustain in that direction.”
Speaking at Sunderland on October 20th, 1887, Lord Randolph ■Churchill, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Salisbury ■Government during the previous year, said :
“ But I have another question to put before you —the amount of money the British people spend in drink yearly is something enormous. I forget the exact amount, but it is certainly some scores of
328
millions. Now, imagine that by some reasonable, wise legislation, we could diminish the fatal facility of recourse to the public-house or gin-shop, a very large proportion of these scores of millions of money would be diverted from the liquor trade, and would flow to other trades in England. All trades would benefit. More food would be purchased, and better kinds of food ; more clothing would be purchased, and a better kind of clothing; more furniture would be purchased, and a better kind ; more education would be given to the children, and a better kind of education ; and in every way in which the money could be diverted from being expended in the liquor trade, so the other trades of this country would benefit. Gentlemen, in these days of bad trade and hard times, we cannot, if we are wise, afford to neglect any means which may justly and legitimately stimulate the trade and industry of Great Britain.”
A Radical Financier.
In his Radical days Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whose commercial ability made him one of the first merchants in Birmingham before he became her first citizen and one of the first citizens of the Empire, has expressed his views on the nature of the obligations of commerce and revenue to the liquor traffic as follows: —“ If I could destroy to-morrow the desire for strong drink in the people of England what changes should we see! We should s. e our taxes reduced by millions sterling. We should see our gaols and workhouses empty. We should see more lives saved in twelve months than are consumed in a century of bitter and savage war.” In the course of his political career, Mr. Chamberlain has abandoned much of his early creed, but that statement has never been withdrawn or modified.
Colonial Financiers.
In Canada, just after the Prohibition plebiscite of 1894, the Hon. George E. Foster, then Treasurer of the Dominion, who may be said, in view of the plebiscite and of the office which he held, tohave spoken with a special sense of responsibility, said: “ Personally I have no doubt, and never had any, that if the waste and ruin entailed by drink were done away with, the country could well afford to pay three times the taxes in another way.”
In this country two Premiers and Colonial Treasurers—Sir H. A. Atkinson and Mr. Ballance —have declared that the revenue had nothing to fear from Prohibition; and the former went so far as to say that it would be sound finance, that it would actually pay, to extinguish the liquor traffic, even if full compensation had to be paid for every license.
The latest public utterance on the liquor question of a distinguished ex-Premier, now Chief Justice, before his promotion to the Bench, was an elaborate refutation of the fallacies of those wholook upon the traffic as a profitable source of revenue.
No Authority on the Other Side.
Against this array of authority, which includes three es-Chancellors-of the Exchequer and three ex-Colonial Treasurers, what have the champions of liquor to produce? So far as I know, though the challenge
329
has been repeatedly thrown down, not a single economist, financier, statesman, or public man of the first, or second, or even of the ninth or tenth rank has expressed any fear whatever for the effect of Prohibition on the revenue. The greatest financiers of England and the colonies are on one side, and on the other not one whose name is worth mentioning, or even sufficiently known for us to mention, if we so desired.
Chapter 111.
THE TEACHING OF EXPERIENCE.
Reasoning and authority point unhesitatingly in one direction. But to some minds facts and experience speak more strongly than either. I shall therefore conclude with a few instances of the observed effect of the total or partial abolition of the liquor traffic upon the public finances.
Speaking of County Tyrone, Ireland, Lord Claude Hamilton, M.P., said ;
There is a district in that county of 61 square miles, inhabited by nearly 10,000 people, having three great roads communicating with market towns in which there are no public houses, entirely owing to the self-action of the inhabitants. The result has been that whereas those highroads were in former times constant scenes of strife and drunkenness, necessitating the presence of a very considerable number of police to be located in the district, at present there is not a single policeman in the district, the poor rates are half what they were before, and all the police and magistrates testify to the great absence of crime.”
Kansas Revenue Benefited by Prohibition
Kansas carried State Prohibition in 1881. In 1889 the Probato Judges of all the 105 counties of the State who had been its licensing authorities before the abolition of licenses were asked by the New York “ Voice ” to say whether the loss of the license fees (which ranged from flO to £100) through the closing of the saloons had been made good to the revenue in other ways. Replies were received from ninetyseven counties, and no less than ninety of them reported a decrease in crime and pauperism so marked as to more than make up the loss of revenue. It will be noted that in Kansas crime as well as pauperism is a local burden, and therefore the improvement of local finance which is testified to means a good deal more than the same thing would mean in New Zealand. Here are some of the replies :
Osborne County : “ Much more than made good; crime, pauperisms and taxes less.”
330
Cloud County : “ Yes, sir. Expense of running criminal courts of the county is less than one-tenth what it was under license.”
Jasper County : “ Taxes decreased for police purposes ; less crime ; pauperism decreased 75 per cent, in proportion to population.”
Greenwood County : “ Yes. More than a hundred times.”
Summer County : “ Prior to Prohibition we had fifteen saloons and fifteen policemen ; now only one marshal, who has little to do.”
During the last twenty years the enforcement of the law has -steadily improved until its success is conceded even by its enemies, and to-day Kansas may be regarded as the model Prohibition State of the Union. The financial success of the experiment was proclaimed last year by Governor Stubbs in his famous challenge to the people ■of Chicago :
“ If wisdom should cause you to send such a delegation to Kansas, I will guarantee that they will not find a business man of standing in the State who will not testify that Prohibition is one of the best business assets of Kansas.”
New Zealand’s Experience.
In New Zealand the financial benefits of No-License cannot as yet be precisely measured because the experiments have been local only while most of the expenses entailed by the traffic are a charge upon the general revenue. But we know that in Clutha No-License has practically abolished drunkenness, and has reduced all offences by 61 per cent. A similar reduction for New Zealand as a whole would reduce the annual total of offences from 25,106 to 9038, and the arrests for drunkenness from 11,718 to 469, i.e., to less than one-fifth of the number for Wellington City and Suburbs alone. But National Prohibition would give better proportionate results than Local No-License, since there would be no adjoining district to hold out temptations and provoke crime to be debited in part to the “ dry ” area. Of the seven persons convicted for drunkenness in Balclutha during the last three years everyone was proved to have done his drinking outside the district. But when the whole of New Zealand has gone “ dry ” there will be no drunkards to tumble in from Sydney or the high seas and mar the cleanness of the record. Both the crime-sheet and the revenue of New Zealand under Dominion Prohibition would therefore show even better results than have been produced by the partial experiments of Kansas and Clutha.
Famine less deadly than Whisky.
But the most remarkable example of the financial benefits of prohibition even under the most discouraging conditions is furnished by the experience of Ireland between 1809 and 1817. To say that •even famine is a less cruel enemy than whisky might seem to be an extravagant statement, but it is proved twice over by Ireland’s Experience during the years in question.
331
There was famine in the land in 1809-10, and during those years distillation was stopped. Then came a time of plenty in 1811-12 and the distilleries were re-opened. Famine appeared again in 1818-14, and again the distilleries were closed, to be opened once more with the return of plenty in 1815. The Rev. Dennis Hird describes the effects as follows :
“In every way the country gained by the closing of the distilleries. In the first place crime, disorder, drunkenness, disease and pauperism were all diminished ; and in the second place, although less was obtained from the taxes upon drink, more was obtained from taxes upon other articles which people were rich enough to buy in greater quantities than ever before. And what is true of Ireland is true of the whole of the British Empire ; when there has been a decrease in the amount of liquor consumed there has been an increase in the amount of tea, coffee and cocoa, all of which pay a tax to the Government. And thus what is lost in one way i& made up in another.”
Increase of Irish Imports During Famine.
The official returns of Irish trade during the years in question, furnish unanswerable proof of the correctness of Mr. Hird s contentions, the imports of food, clothing, household goods, etc., during the famine years, showing a decided and in some cases an enormous increase over the years of plenty, when distillation proceeded. The following are the figures for some of the most important articles :
This represents an increase of over 871 per cent, in the consumption during the famine years of staple commodities, three of which, undei the New Zealand tariff, would have paid an ad valorem duty of 20 pei cent. It is surely not unduly sanguine to hold that if the position had been reversed, if the distilleries had been open during the lean years and closed during the years of plenty, the increase might have been doubled. The actual increase would then have been 75 per cent, instead of 874.
332
But an average increase of 12£ per cent, in consumption of imports has already been shown to be enough to make good to this colony the loss of the liquor. It would be madness to suggest that prosperous New Zealand, with an additional £4,000,000 a year to spend on the comforts and luxuries of life, would not show better results than poverty-stricken Ireland during a famine. Yet all that New Zealand would need to patch the hole in her revenue would be an increase in consumption representing less than a third of that realised by Ireland on the articles abovementioned under such terrible conditions.
Economics and Morals at One.
With these figures before us we can understand why the highest financial authorities have all regarded a decline in the liquor revenue not merely without apprehension but with a lively satisfaction. The liquor traffic is a heavy burden upon the taxpayers instead of a benefit. The suggestion that in New Zealand they will have to pay £1,000,000 more in taxes if they strike at the most prolific source of crime, pauperism, disease, degradation and death is quite in keeping with the measureless mendacity of this soul destroying traffic. Without a pennyworth of fresh taxation, without pressure or wrench of any kind, the normal operations of the market, the natural demand for betterfood and clothing and for other products of decent industries on the part of those who at present deny themselves and their families the necessaries of life in order to fatten a foul and poisonous social parasite will fill the Treasury as the ill-gotten gains of the liquor traffic have never filled it.
Thus an argument which has excluded every moral consideration as rigidly as the most whole-souled Mammon-worshipper could desire, brings us to exactly the same conclusion at which the moralist arrives on higher grounds. For financial and economical reasons the liquor traffic must go, even if it never ruined a life, broke a heart or damned a soul. Even those who bold the godless doctrine that it is revenue and not righteousness that exalteth a nation, must admit, if their economics be any sounder than their theology, that the way to exalt a nation is to abolish the liquor traffic.
W. J. Lankshear, Printer, 354 Lambton Quay, Wellington.
The Revenue Question in a Nutshell.
Without a word of proof the public is being freely told that the revenue will lose £1,000,000 if the liquor traffic is abolished. The statement is made by men whose sole concern is for their own revenues, and it will not bear half an hour’s disinterested examination.
A STIFF COMMISSION.
The liquor-sellers themselves do not contribute anything to the revenue. The merchant and the grocer charge their customers with whatever duty has to be paid on the goods they sell, and the liquor-seller does the same. The liquorseller collects the duty, but the customer pays it. The cost of the liquor consumed in New Zealand in 1910 was £3,803,438. This amount includes the duties, but not the heavy retail profits. The addition of that item would probably increase the actual amount paid by customers to £6,000,000 at least; but for the purpose of this argument let us leave it at the lower figure. The total amount of revenue received in duties and licence fees was £847,275. How then does the account stand? Acting as our tax-collector, the liquor-seller draws £3,803,438 from the public, pays £847,275 into the Treasury, and pockets £2,956,163 for his commission. Isn’t a commission of 350 per cent, rather “stiff” for so simple apiece of work ? And isn’t it brazen effrontery that the man who charges it should suggest that his employers will find themselves in financial straits if they choose some less extravagant method of collection ?
DEBIT AND CREDIT.
But this extortionate commission is not the only liability with which the liquor-seller saddles the country. His is not a productive industry like that of the farmer, the carpenter, the miner, or the engineer. Their products are such things as food, coal, buildings, roads and railways which add to the wealth of the country. The liquor-seller’s principal products are crime, pauperism, disease, and insanity. The full cost of these hideous products of the liquor traffic cannot be estimated precisely, but an approximate estimate is possible of the direct public cost. The total cost of the Departments principally concerned with combating these evils, viz., Prisons, Police, Charitable Aid, Industrial Schools, Old Age Pensions, Hospitals, Mental Hospitals, etc., is £1,000.448. Debiting liquor with a proportion of the expenditure ranging from 75 per cent, in the case of crime and charitable aid to 30 per cent, in the case of insanity—the proportion being in each case lower than that approved by some competent authority—we arrive at £587,768 as the cost to the community of the
crime, pauperism, disease and insanity engendered by drink. A substantial addition might be made for the cost of Inebriates’ Homes, Licensing Polls, etc., but let us omit these in order not to cut our estimate too close. Subtracting £587,768 from the £847,275, which represents liquor’s gross contribution to the revenue, reduces its net contribution to £259,507. Seeing that Customs duties, estimated to represent £375,000, were freely remitted at one stroke in 1907, the idea that so small a deficit would occasion any embarrassment is plainly absurd.
Nor would even this amount have to be found all at once. The carrying of Dominion Prohibition is likely to involve the carrying of No-License in at least half of the districts at the same time. But the local vote which would cut off, say, two-fifths of the supply of liquor would operate at once. The operation of Dominion Prohibition would, however, be postponed for four years. The problem would therefore merely be to find £lOO,OOO at once, and an additional £160,000 four years later.
THE MONEY WOULD STILL CIRCULATE.
Now, who cannot see that if the people have nearly four millions more to spend this trifling deficiency will be made up without the slightest difficulty, and made up several times over ? The money will, of course, not be stowed away in old stockings or tea-pots; and practically none of it will habitually find an investment so wasteful as drink. More and better food, clothing, furniture, and the like will be bought with a large part of the money by families which have hitherto gone short. The expenditure of the drink money on the products of decent industries will indeed give such a stimulus to industry as this country has never experienced. It will be about as good as £3,000,000 of loan money every year on which no interest will be charged and which will never need to be repaid.
NOT A DEFICIT BUT A SURPLUS
The total value of our imports last year, exclusive of liquor and specie, was, after paying £2.270,187 of duty, £18,654,734. The £3,803,438 now spent on drink would, if equally divided among other imports, yield more than £460.000 in duty, which is £200,000 in excess of the net shortage arising from the loss of the liquor revenue. The alleged deficit of £1,000,000 has thus been transformed into a surplus of more than £200,000, Doubtless some of the drink money would actually be spent in developing local industries, and would thereby be doing the country more good than if contributing directly to the Customs revenue. Hut, if £1.600.000 were devoted to this purpose every vear, the £2.200,000 remaining would, if expended indiscriminately on all imports other than liquor, provide more revenue than would he lost by the abolition of liquor.
WHAT THE FINANCIERS SAY
These figures explain why great financiers have always hailed with satisfaction a decline in the liquor revenue. When
a deputation of brewers questioned Mr. Gladstone on tbe point, he replied: “Gentlemen, give me a sober people not wasting their money upon strong drink, and I shall know how to provide my revenue.” Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Gladstone’s political opponent, and also for many years Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the amount of wealth that a decreased consumption of spirits would bring to the nation "would utterly throw into the shade the amount of revenue now derived from the spirit duty.” Lord Randolph Churchill, another Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer said that “in every way in which money could be diverted from being expended in the liquor trade, so the other trades of this country would benefit.” Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said that if the people of England could be cured of their taste for strong drink, “we should see our taxes reduced by millions sterling.” Mr. G. E. Foster, when Treasurer of Canada, said that “if the waste and ruin entailed by drink were done away with, the country could well afford to pay three times the taxes in another way.” In New Zealand three ex-Premiers —Sir Harry Atkinson, Mr. Ballance, and Sir Robert Stout—have all said that the revenue has nothing to fear from Prohibition.
WHISKY MORE DEADLY THAN FAMINE.
A wonderful example of how general trade and the revenue profit even under the most adverse conditions from the reduction of the drink expenditure is provided by the experience of Ireland. Twice, between 1811 and 1817, the distilleries were closed during periods of famine to be re-opened when the calamity had passed. The result was to show that the expenditure on food, clothing and other necessaries actually increased during the famine years. The increase in some of the leading imports was as follows: —Tea, 11 per cent., sugar, 24 per cent.; haberdashery, 26 per cent.; iron, hardware, etc., 38 per cent.; cotton goods, 90 per cent. The consumption of these articles actually averaged 371 per cent, more when famine was in the land than when it was not, simply because in the one case the distilleries were closed and in the other they were open. Whisky proved a more deadly enemy to the general comfort, to trade and to revenue than famine.
HOWTO BOOM INDUSTRY
New Zealand has only to do during years of plenty onethird as well as poverty-stricken Ireland did in years of famine in order to patch up the tiny hole that the loss of liquor might leave in her revenue. A 12i per cent, increase in other imports would supply all the revenue that she would need. Is it not as plain as daylight that not a deficit, but a thumping surplus, would result from the destruction of the liquor traffic P The way to boom industry and the revenue is to
STRIKE OUT THE TOP LINE ON BOTH PAPERS.
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC In account with THE REVENUE
On the assumption that the whole of the money now spent on liquor would, in the absence of liquor, be spent indiscriminately on all other imports —an assumption which, as we have seen, considerably under-estimates the benefit that would actually accrue to the country —the following statement summarizes the within argument as to the true relations of the liquor traffic and the revenue :
s>r.
Cost of drink-made crime, pauperism, &c £587,768
Revenue derivable from the drink expenditure of £8,803,438, it devoted to other imports .... £460,000
£1,047,768
®r.
Customs —Spirits .... £616,835
Wines .... £40,888
Ale, Beer, &c., .... £27,159
Excise —Beer .... £117,493
License Fees .... £44,900
£847,275
Balance to the credit of revenue if liquor abolished . £200,493
The Result of Prohibition would therefore be
NOT a Deficit of £1,000,000 BUT a Surplus of £200,000
STRIKE OUT THE TOP LINE ON BOTH PAPERS I
Printed for the N./.. Alliance by tV. -T. T.ankshenr. l.amhton Quay, Wgton
AN ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE Anglican Synod
IN THE DIOCESE OF WAIAPU
Rev.R.B.S.HAMMOND
Rector —St. Simon's, Sydney, IN.S.^
With Answers to Questions, and a brief Statement by the Lord Bishop of Waiapu. SEPTEMBER 27th, 1911.
Issued by The New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Traffic, 113 Willis Street, Wellington.
LAHK«MtA* PAINT
2
NO-LICENSE and DOMINION PROHIBITION.
My Lord Bishop, brother clergy, and members of the Synod
I do not presume to exhort you or dictate to you, but since it has fallen to my lot to have become somewhat of a specialist, I am glad to bring under your notice certain facts bearing on the question of No-License and Dominion Prohibition, which in your busy life may easily have escaped you.
We do not need to argue about the evils of intemperance, for we all deplore them, we do not need to dwell on them for we are all painfully aware of them, the question for our consideration is the method by which the evil may be abated. We must strongly control the tendency to discuss methods that are not available, the question is not what we would like, but what will we do with the ottered remedies.
A MAN MUCH BETTER THAN A SHEEP.
In the twelfth chapter of St. Matthew it is written : “What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the Sabbath Day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out ? How much then is a man of more value than a sheep?” We must not quarrel about the method of getting either the sheep or man out of the pit, we need only be concerned to know if the means available does get him out. A budding poet once wrote a touching poem in which he recorded that the ardent lover kissed his fair lady under the stars. The prosaic printer announced to the public in the columns of his paper that he kissed her under the stairs. When the outraged poet remonstrated, the printer philosophically retorted : “The point is he kissed her, and it makes no difference whether it was under the stars or the stairs.” St. Paul surely held this view when he taught that “by all means we should save some,” though to hear the way certain clergymen refuse to help in necessary reforms, would lead one to believe that their Bible read “by some means we should save all.” Again, T assert that the most important thing is not the means but the result.
NO CHOICE OF WEAPON
Wo aro in the unhappy position of the duelist who has not the right to choose his weapons, hut must make the most of those offered, no matter how little they are to his liking or how unaccustomed he is to their use. l iquor is legally entrenched, its headquarters are at the Legislature, and we
must outlaw it before we can defeat it, and the legal weapon is the appropriate thing, however distasteful it may be to us. It is well to remember that the history ot our civilisation is told in the record of our laws, and good laws have ever made it easy to do right and hard to do wrong.
Our compulsion to use the legal weapon reminds me of the gentleman who paid a visit to a farm and was met by an aggressive bulldog. He used his most soothing tones, but the dog still came on, and finally, unable to retreat any further on account of the fence, he, in desperation, availed himself of a handy pitchfork which only further infuriated the dog, and he was compelled to stick the fork into him. At this stage the owner came out and demanded to know why he had injured his dog. 'l'he man explained he had only defended himself. “That is all very well,” said the owner: “but why did not you defend yourself with the other end of the pitchfork?” “Well,” retorted the man, “why didn’t your dog come at me with his other end?”
(A member of the Synod interjected, “That is a tale.” “Tes," replied the speaker, “a telling tale.”)
A DOOR OF TEMPTATION,
The open bar is the devil’s way to man, and man’s way to the devil. It is never seriously denied that the open bar is a door of temptation; it is legally open and socially sanctioned, and has attractions and gives opportunities that are irresistible to very many. It is an old saying that “ ’Tis opportunity that makes the thief.” The open Bar is a standing invitation and a constant stimulus to the shouting habit, which is simply hospitality run mad. Professor Anderson Stewart, the Dean of the Medical Faculty in New South Wales, said in his famous address delivered in Sydney in July, 1911; ‘‘The sanest way to treat a man who invites you to have a drink is to knock him down and sit on his chest until he apologises.” Those of us who pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” are surely under an obligation to close a door of temptation when we have the chance, and the ballot box offers such a chance.
THE RECORD OF DRUNKENNESS.
In 1910 the Police Iteport shows that there were 11,718 convictions for drunkenness. Of this number 820 were women and 7056 were recorded as first convictions. This latter statement need's an explanation —it only means that ihe offender has not been before the Court for the previous six months, which does not affect the seriousness of the position very much. A vote for continuance means that you are content for the next three years that this great number, which is
3
1
steadily increasing, should be made victims of the open baf Surely no sane and humane person can be a party to the con tinuance of a system which guarantees to provide 35,000 con victions in the space of three years!
A MIRACULOUS REDUCTION.
When we consider how little our preaching and our educiation have done, that in spite of them drunkenness has increased, then it is the more wonderful that No-License has such a record as the following
MASTERTON POLICE COURT CONVICTIONS.
The last year of License July 1, 1908 to June 80, 1909.
Thu last year of No-License July 1, 1910 to June 80, 1911.
474 66
In the first six months of 1908 under License there were 119 sittings of the Court, in the first six months of 1911 there were only 39 sittings of the same Court, a decrease of 80.
ALL OFFENCES IN OTHER COURTS.
Town License. No-License.
Balclutha (10 years) 292 122
Clinton (7 years) 157 41
Gore (5 years) 507 244 . , /r> \ 000 IKK
Ashburton (2 years) 323 155
Port Chalmers (2 years) 545 189
Oamaru (18 months) 440 142
Milton (11 months) 50 15
Kaitangata (11 months) 83 12
Masterton (1 year) 474 66
Waihi (1 year) 83 13
Total 2954 999
CRIME REDUCED 65 PER CENT
DRINK BILL.
The drink consumption for the Dominion last year averaged £3 13s. Id. per head of the population, but when an analysis was made it was found that the amount consumed in licensed districts was £4 35., while in the No-License districts the amount was only 16s. 3d.
OTHER REASONS.
The clergy, who know the home life of the people as no one else does, are quite unanimous in their opinion that NoLicense protects the home, and in this the six medical men of Masterton and the four medical men of Oamaru are in hearty and public agreement. The business men of every NoLicense town have pronounced in favour of the closing of the
bar from a business point of view; from Tu to 80 per cent, of them, in answer to questions on the subject, have declared that it improves business, or, at any rate, has not retarded it. The Police have given quiet but valuable and convincing evidence that the law can be enforced, and with great advantage.
Sub-Inspector Mitchell, of Invercargill, pronounced it “a crowning success.’’
SERGEANT STACROOLE, OF OAMARU, SAYS:
“The new clauses of the Licensing Act have been exceedingly beneficial. They have aided the enforcement of the lav. very greatly. Coming from Palmerston North (which is under License and where excessive drinking is unfortunately common) to Uamaru, the contrast in police duties is wonderful. Here we have very little trouble with helpless and unpleasant drunkards. The BULK OE THE PERSONS WHO ARE ARRESTED FOE DRUNKENNESS SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED AGAINST NO-LICENSE IN OAM AllU. as their arrest takes place either at the station RETURNING FROM LICENSED DISTRICTS or on their way from the station to the town. I DO NOT THINK THAT THERE WERE TEN ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS LAST YEAR IN WHICH THE OFFENCE HAD BEEN CAUSED BY LIQUOR CONSUMED OR BOUGHT IN OAMARU.
“The most notorious sly grog-seller we have was also a sly grog-seller in License days. IT IS EASIEE TO STAMP OUT SLY GROG-SELLING IN A NO-LICENSE THAN IN A LICENSE AREA. In ‘dry’ towns sly-sellers have to be so exceedingly careful, and sell to such a limited circle, that the amount consumed is very small.
“A good deal of drink is legally brought in here, bu its import is confined to a limited circle of people, whosi names recur again and again. Except for small quantities which may be brought in without registration, all the liquon imported must be registered by the Clerk of the Court. Till NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN OUR LICENSING DISTRICT IS OVER 13,000, AND 1 FEEL SURE THAT THE NUM BER OF DIFFERENT NAMES RECURRING IS ONLY BE TWEEN THREE AND FOUR HUNDRED, CERTAIN IA NOT MORE THAN FOUR HUNDRED.
“The quantity imported is also a diminishing one, being less last year than the year before. ALL THE LIQUOR THAT CAME IN FOR CHRISTMAS WEEK LAST YEAR FOR THAT 13,000 PEOPLE WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR THE CHRISTMAS EVENING’S BUSINESS FOR ONE LICENSED BAR. I have never seen a keg party and have been here now 7 more than a year, and have kept my eyes open. I do not say there are no keg parties,
5
6
but I have never seen one. They are certainly not numerous or 1 would have seen them.
“THOM A POLICE POINT OF VIEW, (JIVE ME NOLICENSE EVERY TIME. The town is clean, and there is not a disorderly woman here I think the use of liquor is an indispensible adjunct to that business."
A CLERGYMAN’S INFLUENCE
There is no doubt that a clergyman’s influence, his unconscious influence, is very r far-reaching. What he does not do may be as significant and effective as what he does. This places us under peculiar obligation to act in this matter of liquor reform with courage and convictions that are the result of close study of the question.
We find those who are unable to make up their minds, ami they remind us of the vicar who was invited to a Bishopric, and the curate called to ascertain if he had accepted the invitation. He was met at the door by one of the family, who informed him that “father was in the study praying for guidance, but mother was upstairs packing up.” In such cases people may be forgiven for thinking that “the grey mare was the better horse.”
Praying, it seems, may become an impiety. In Joshua vii. 10, the man of God is told to get up from his knees and remove the evil thing hidden in Achan’s tent —until then his prayers are not only useless but offensive. Silence becomes a crime, and scepticism may bring disaster to the sceptic, as instanced in ii. Kings vii. Those who found in the absence of the enemy great plenty decided that in the day of good tidings they did not well to remain silent, and the officer who scoffed at the good news, saw but never tasted of the good things being crushed to death at the gate.
Inactivity becomes a sin, as we may well conclude from the fate of those “who came not to the help of the Lord against, the mighty.”
The Lord Bishop said in his sermon in the Napier Cathedral last Sunday night: “Why has the Church so little power” and in his answer to this question his Lordship said with devout earnestness: “Becaue the voice of the Church is too often silent when it ought to ring through the length and breadth of the land.” Brethren, let us take the trouble to be sure and seek the courage to dare, and then lift our voice in protest against the evils of intemperance and the undoubted menace and harm of the open bar; we indeed do well to vote and advocate No-License in our electorate and Prohibition for our Dominion.
At the conclusion of the address, the Lord Bishop of Waiapu asked those present to remember that the subject
had been lifted to a very high plane, and was characterised by such an excellent spirit that he hoped the discussion would proceed on similar lines.
Among the questions asked were the following:
Question. —What evidence is there that the percentage of alcohol in such beverages as porter, beer, and wine, outweighs their nutritious value ?
Answer.—This is a question fully answered, and conclusive evidence is given by medical men, and (he most complete and authorative answer is to be found in Sir Victor Horsley and Hr. Sturge’s book, “Alcohol and the Human Body,” published in London, 1909.
Question. —Is there any warrant for such drastic 3; c latiou as National Prohibition ?
Answer. —What has become a national evil must be met by a national remedy. The fact that some can apparent! v afford to take liquor does not weigh against the necessity of acting on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Question. —Would the police invade the borne of those who might manufacture for their own use an intoxicating beverage ?
Answer.-—The interpretation of the term “manufacture - ;c used in the Act is:—“ Manufacture for sale or public use.” The Act forbidding gambling has not resulted in the invasion of the home of the bridge players, and National Prohibition will not permit any undue interference with the homes of the people.
Question.- Would it be possible for the Church to use .-mi medical men to prescribe wines or alcohol ?
Answer.- Yes: provision is made in the Act tor both.
Question. -To what extent do you believe sly grog-selling would result ?
Answer.—License has never protected us from sly grog-sell-ing, as is proved by the convictions for sly grog-selling in Auckland, Wellington, and even in Napier.
Sub-Inspector O’Brien, of the Clutlia district, in his official report, says: ‘‘l am convinced that sly grog-sell-ing has practically been stamped out we had only one conviction in the last twelve months.”
Sub-Inspector Mitchell, of Invercaigill, says: T have no evidence that sly-grog is being carried on to any extent.”
Question.- Would it not have been better to have retained the reduction issue?
7
Answer.—Many things in the Act might be better, notably the outrageous three-fifths majority, but we waste time discussing what is not; the question is—can we better things by means of what is offered ? and I say unhesitatingly, Yes.
Question. —Would the vote for Dominion Prohibition be be counted for local No-License if the larger issue were not carried ?
Answer. —No; each question is submitted on a separate paper, and the votes are quite independent of one another.
Question. —What effect would No-License have on the accommodation in small places ?
Answer.—This can best be answered by a reference to the fact that in New South Wales most of the leading banks prohibit their employees in their country branches from living in a hotel, and they are always happily accommodated in private. Wherever there is a demand for accommodation it will be met, and there is abundant evidence that the accommodation in No-License areas is as good as that obtained at a similar price in licensed places.
Question. —Is not National Prohibition in opposition to St Paul’s advice to Timothy?
Answer.—Certainly not; one has to do with the medicinal use of alcohol, which is provided for under National Prohibition, the other has to do with the manufacture and sale of intoxicants as a beverage, which were quite tinknown in St. Paul’s dav.
THE BISHOP’S SUMMING-UP.
The Lord Dishop of Waiapa said: “There is not time to say all I would like to say, but there is one thing I can’t get over, and that is the 7000 first offenders for last year. I ask myself—what would the Lord .Jesus have one do, and there is only one answer for me —whatever others may do, I shall vote No-License.’’
THE SYNOD’S RESOLUTION
Resolution unanimously carried by the Synod at their evening session. The Rev. F. W. Chatterton moved : ‘‘That considering the great hindrance to the work of the Church occasioned by intemperance, this Synod urges the faithful members of the Church to realise their responsibilities in the matter, especially in view of the approaching local option and National Prohibition polls, and to do all that in them lies to cope with what cannot but he regarded as a national curse.”
W. J. Lankshear, Lambton Quay, Wellingtor
Should Christians Vote Against the Liquor Traffic?
REVISED AND ENLARGED.
H. CURRAN,
Maori Missionary and Evangelist.
W. J. Lankshear, Printer, Lambton Quay, Wellington
2
SHOULD CHRISTIANS VOTE AGAINST THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC?
The writer has been asked this question very many times; and has often been pressed to answer it in writing. The fact that Christians are asking the question is proof that it requires an answer; for every child of God should know that it is our duty to work that which is good when we have the opportunity.
God says; “As we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith.” (Gal. 6.10 R.Y.)
Strong drink is a curse. It is one of the greatest curses, if not the greatest, that has ever blighted this favoured country. It has wrecked millions of lives, broken millions of hearts, destroyed millions of homes, and damned millions of souls.
On voting day, God will give us a golden opportunity of working that which is good toward all men —saint and sinner —the opportunity of striking out the “Top Line,” and.of removing this curse from our land.
In this (Oroua) district there were about 12,000 adults in 1905. More than 90 Christians refused to vote that time. NoLicense was lost by 90 votes, and the Christians, who did not vote, are responsible for the drink-curse, and all the crime caused by it in the Oroua district, with its 12,000 people.
In 1908 a Christian lady, whose life has been blighted, and whose home has been cursed by a drunken husband, said : “Last time I did not vote, because I wasn’t sure what was right.” I said: “Do you believe the drink to be a curse? and do you wish to see it taken from the country?” “Oh ! yes !!!” she replied. “Of course you do. Nowtell the Government the same on voting-day, by striking out the Top Line; for we are all asked the question on that day: ‘Do you want the drink ?' ” We thought that lady would certainly act. However, she read an article in a religious paper, by an evangelist, entitled, “Should Christians vote?” This prevented her from voting, as many others have been.
Recently, the writer had a conversation with some Maoris on Spiritual matters. One man was greatly interested. I asked: “Do you believe in these things?” He replied: “I certainly do; but drink is my stumbling-block. They will not let us vote, or we would send it out of the country. You people brought it. Oh! take it out of our way !”
God says; “Prepare the way, take the stumbling-block out of the way of my people.” (isa. 57.14.)
By voting you can take the stumbling-block out of the way; but by not voting you place a stumbling-block and an occasion to fall in his way.
God says: “Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Bom. U. 13).
The writer preached many times at a certain pah. The Maoris lived on one side of the river, while the Europeans lived on the other. Just at the end of the bridge there is a public-house, which the natives pass to go to town. A good Christian preacher was stationed at this pah, but he got discouraged. The writer, too, found no fruit for his preaching, and wondered why.
At last the Maoris said : “It is no use for you to talk, and tell us what to do. That hotel stands at the end of the bridge, and we can’t pass it. We don’t want it. You pakehas put it there. Take it away! You had power to put it there. You have power to take it away. Vote against it and take it out of our way. It is your fault. They won’t let us vote. The writer knows many pahs in the same condition.
Some years ago a poor drunkard left his old home, and took up a bush section; and there he lived a sober man, away from the public-house. By and bye he heard they were going to build a public-house at the corner of his section. The man was broken hearted, because he knew his curse. He went round to his neighbours with a petition, requesting them to sign it, for he wished to keep the hotel away. He pleaded with his neighbours to help him, saying: “If they build the hotel here, I will be the first man to fall.” They built it. He was the first to fall. The last time I saw him he was helplessly drunk; and, probably, long ere this he has gone to a drunkard’s grave.
God says: “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink” (Hab. 2.15). Those who vote for the liquor traffic, or refuse to vote against it, are giving their neighbours drink. God says of such: “Woe unto him.”
Now, Christian brethren and sisters, Dare you vote for the drink? If not, vote against it; for “Silence gives consent.”
If your name is not on the 8011, get it on or you cannot act. It is an unequal contest. Two on the drink side will be counted equal to three on our side. Do not think there will be plenty without your help. It may be that your vote will decide the matter in your district. The responsibility is great!!!
At the 1905 election they felt sure that Bruce would carry “No-License” with ease. A number of Christians did not feel their responsibility, and went to a picnic, saying: “There are plenty to vote without us.” They enjoyed the “outing.” They laughed and played all day, while the enemy worked hard. What was the result? Telegrams were flashed all over the colony:—-“Bruce lost ‘No-License’ by 9 votes.” At last
3
election these Christians wakened up to their responsibility, and carried “No-License.” Oh! that all Christians would do the same!
WHY DID HUTT FAIL TO GET NO-LICENSE BY LESS THAN 3 VOTES?
In one house no less than six Christians failed to record their votes. In other houses the same sad thing occurred. No-License could have been carried easily, had the Christians done their duty. It is extremely sad when Christians who profess to love their Lord, are responsible for the drinkcurse, and all the crime caused by it, for three long years.
Christians, think of this ! If all of you do your duty, you can close every hotel in New Zealand.
If every professing Christian acts, it can be settled at next election !
Recently, in one district, “No-License” was lost by one vote. Later, when a young man was being tried for a crime caused by the cursed drink, a father wept, and told the Judge that No-License was lost, because they were one vote short. “I wms the one,” said he, “who did not vote, and am the cause of this.” No wonder he wept.
THE UNEQUAL YOKE.
Some say they cannot act, because it would be the unequal yoke.
Is there any yoke in going into a place alone, and striking the pencil through what you know is a dreadful evil? You are only asked to act as an individual; but Satan says: “It is the unequal yoke.”
If an ass fell into a pit, when Jesus was here on earth, He expected men to pull it out. Fancy a Christian passing and refusing to help three other men who are pulling at it, because one of them might not be converted ! They have each got a leg, but require a fourth man to help, or they must leave it there. But he refuses to do his duty, fearing one of them might not be a Christian, and the poor ass is left to die. No man who would act thus would be worthy of the name of Christian; and yet, there are thousands around us to-day doing much worse. If it would be a sin to refuse to help a beast, how much greater the sin if we refuse to help our fellow-men ?
WHAT DOES COD SAY?
He says: “Let us do good unto all men.’’ (Gal. 6.10.) “Put them in mind to be ready to every good work.” “These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain
4
good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” (Titus 3.1, 8.) He also says: “And let our people also learn to maintain good work for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.” (Titus 3.14 R.V.)
Yesterday a professional gentleman came to me and told me that he knew that the drink would “do for him.” He said: “I know that it will get me under; but what can I do? The only thing is to vote it out of the country.”
Another said: “I vote against it every time; but long as it is to be had, I’ll have it. I can’t help it. The proper way is to take it away from us.” Surely it would be a very good work to remove this temptation out of their way.
WHAT DO THE JUDGES SAY?
I have found that if the murders, manslaughters, burglaries, robberies, riots, tumults, adulteries, rapes, that have happened in that time (20 years on the Bench) were divided into five parts, four of them would have been the outcome of excessive drinking.—Sir Matthew Hale, Lord Chief Justice (17th century).
If England could be made sober, three-fourths of her gaol might be closed.—Lord Chief Justice Coleridge.
After forty years at the Bar, and ten years as a Judge, I have no hesitation in saying that 90 per cent, of the crime of this country is caused by indulgence in drink.—Lord Alverstone, present Lord Chief Justice of England, 1909.
Much, if not all, the business of the calendar is the result of strong drink.—Mr. Justice Hayes.
The root of almost all crime is the hideous tyranny of drink.—Mr. Justice Haevkins.
Judge Pattison said to the Jury: “If it were not for drinking, you and I would have nothing to do.”
Judge Butler said: “The case at the Bar is the 76th murder case I have tried, either as State Attorney or as Judge during the past 19 years. I have kept a careful record of each case, and I have to say that in 75 out of 76, liquor was the exciting cause.”
In a letter, Governor Larrabee quotes an official report by the Hon. G. W. Ruddick, whom he describes as one of the oldest and best Judges of the State. The report, dated June 11th, 1887, says : “The gaols in this district are now idle, and in eight terms of Court held by me since January Ist, there has been but one indictment presented, and I think the Grand Juries have been reasonably diligent.”
Judge Harvey is quoted as saying; “I am frequently asked what is tke cause of this decrease of crime during the last four years. My answer is, the enforcement of the Prohibitory law.”
The Governor quotes the Hon. W. P. Wolf, of Tipton, as saying: “When open saloons were running in Tipton,
352
353
breaches of peace and other crimes were much more frequent than now. The records of the Courts will show that, aside from the prosecutions for the violation of the liquor law, prosecutions in Cedar County for other crimes had fallen off more than 60 per cent.”
But we could fill several books with what Judges have said about the crimes caused by drink. When we do away with the drink, we certainly do away with a tremendous amount of other crimes that never would be committed but for the drink-demon.
WHAT DO DOCTORS SAY?
M. It. Mitchell, M. 1)., who has had four years’ experience in police court as City Physician, says :
‘‘The influence of intoxicating drink tends to increase sexual immorality and venereal disease in three ways, viz.—By the association with and influence of immoral companionship. It stimulates and produces morbid sexual desires. It dethrones reason, degrades appreciation of true manhood and womanhood, and blunts the moral sensibilities and feelings of self-respect. The police court record tells the story of many a life of moral degradation and disease having its incipieucy coincident with some primary scene of Bacchanalian revelry. The brothel flourishes best beside the saloon. On the other hand, undeniable testimony proves the great diminution in the frequency and severity of venereal disease where Proh >bition is enforced.”
Professor Cesare Lombroso, the Italian specialist, in “Crime: Its Causes and Remedies,” says: “Alcoholism is connected directly with crime both from a social and pathological point of view. According to Marambat, of 3000 convicts examined by him, 78 per cent, were drunkards, 79 percent. of these were vagabonds and beggars, 50 per cent, of the assassins, and 57 per cent, of the incendiaries were drunkards, ilarro found that drunkards stood in the first rank as highway robbers—B2 percent. Yetault found among forty alcoholiccriminals that there were 15 homicides, 8 thieves, 5 swindlers, 6 assaulters (on women) 4 assaulters (wounding), and 2 vagrants.”
ALCOHOL A DANGEROUS NARCOTIC
Alcohol has power to create a craving for itself. Each time the narcotic is taken it takes more to satisfy, till, at last, the poor drunkard is quite in its power. He wants to stop, but can't. The drink habit becomes a powerful disease, and, if continued long enough, will force its victim down to the grave, and down to Hell. Every man and woman should rise against this drink-plague, and drive it from the country!
WHAT DO FACTS FROM MASTERTON SAY?
No-License has been the cause of this wonderful change for the better, and has almost abolished crime and drunken
ness in Mastertou, a.s the Court Records prove:—
Years ended June 30th 1909 1910 1911
Last year
First year
Second year
Convictions for
Under I License
Under No5. License.
Under NoLicense.
Drunkenness 287 41 36
Vagrancy 25 2 1
Obscene language 21 2 5
Theft 44 8 6
Indecent exposure 3 (J 0
Malicious injury to property 5 11
Obstructing or resisting police 12 2 0
Totals 397 56 49
In the six months ended June 30th, 1908 (under License), there were 119 sittings of the Magistrate’s Court for criminal business, and for six months ended June 30th, 1911, there were only 39, a reduction of 80 sittings, in six months.
“The absence of crime is considered one of the best evidences of the prosperity of a people, so the Masterton people are to be congratulated on the prosperity of the district, as shown by the records I have been quoting from.” His Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, at the last sittings of the Supreme Court in Masterton.
“At the Masterton Sessions the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, congratulated the Grand Jury on the absence of serious crime, and was presented with a pair of white gloves by the Sheriff in recognition of there being no criminal cases. On Sir Robert Stout’s former visit in March there was only one criminal charge—a charge against a Chinaman, and Sir Robert expressed doubt whether any other district in New Zealand could show such a record.”—“M.T.W. Times,” loth September, 1911.
IN CONCLUSION.
Dear friends, before closing, I would urge you to examine the above figures carefully, and notice that Drunkenness has been reduced from 287 to 36, and Vagrancy from 25 to 1, Obscene Language from 21 to 2, Theft from 44 to 6, Indecent Lxposure from 3 to 0, Malicious Injury to Property, from 5 01, and Obstructing the Police, from 12 to 0, and mark the total—from 397 to only 49.
If removing the drink will have this effect, and will he taking out of the way a Stumbling-Block that causes men to stumble down to the grave, and to Hell, and to do SO much cnme before they get there, surely you will do your part. Alay it never be said of you or me: “Curse ye . . . curse ye itteriy the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the ie pot the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” (Judges 5.23.)
The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
CARDINAL MANNING
“It is mere mockery to ask us to put down drunkenness by moral and religious means, when the Legislature facilitates the multiplication of incitements to intemperance on every side. You mght as well call upon me as the captain of a sinking ship, and say, “Why don’t you pump the water out?” when you are scuttling the ship in every direction. If you will cut off the supply of temptation I will be bound, by the help of God, to convert drunkards; but until you have taken off this perpetual supply of intoxicating drink, we never can cultivate the fields. How, then, can we contend against these legalised and multiplied facilities and temptations to intoxication ? This is my answer to the bland objurgation of those who tell us the ministers of religion are not doing their part: let the Legislature do its part, and we will answer for the rest. [Speech Delivered at Bolton, England.]
How Cardinal Manning would have rejoiced to see the day. How he would have led men of all creeds and faiths to the completion of the opportunity which our legislation has at last given to us.
ARCHBISHOP IRELAND
“Would God place in my hand a wand with which to dispel the evil of intemperance, I would strike the door of every saloon, every distillery, every brewery, until the accursed traffic should be wiped from the face of the earth.” The Archbishop never held that wand. But WE do. Follow the Archbishop’s lead !
ARCHBISHOP IRELAND AGAIN
“We thought we meant business years ago in this warfare, but I hope God will forgive us for our weakness, for we went into the battlefield without sufficient resolution. We laboured under the fatal mistake that we could argue out the question with the rumsellers. We imagined that there was some power in moral suasion, that when we would show them the evil of their ways they would abandon the traffic. We have seen that there is no hope of improving in any shape or form the liquor traffic. There is nothing now to be done but to wipe it out completely.”
[Address Before the Minnesota Catholic Abstinence Union, June 5, 1889, at Minneapolis.]
1
FATHER MATTHEW, THE APOSTLE OF IRELAND.
The greatest master of moral suasion that the world has ever seen, has often been represented as opposed to legislative remedies. He was a vice-president of the United Kingdom Alliance. Towards the end of his career he spoke as follows :
“The question of prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits and the many other intoxicating drinks which are now to be found in our unhappy country is not new to me. The principle of Prohibtion seems to me the only safe and certain remedy for the evils of intemperance. This opinion has been strengthened by the hard labour of more than twenty years in the Temperance cause.’
[Letter to Rev. P. W. Pepper 1854.]
FATHER MATTHEW AGAIN.
“My labours with the Divine aid were attended with partial success. But the efforts of individuals, however zealous, are not equal to the might task. The United Kingdam Alliance (for the total and immediate legislative suppression in the traffic in intoxicating liquors as beverages) strikes at the very root of the evil. I trust in God that the associated efforts of the many good and benevolent men will effectively crush a monster gorged with human gore.”
[Letter from Cork, 21st February, 1853
THE REV. FATHER HAYS,
The Rev. Father Hays, so widely known throughout the world for his advocacy of this reform, preaching last year to a ci'wded Catholic Church at Loughborough, said:—
“Alcohol was the Foulest and Most Dangerous Foe to Religion and to the Country.
“In the slums and alleys of the great cities were to be found thousands of people—poor, wretched, miserable human beings—ekeing out a wretched, miserable existence in hovels and cellars and back lanes and in shanties so utterly unfit for human habitation that no gentleman would use them as a shelter for his horses and dogs. Amidst all this utter degradation and demoralisation—the ghastly squalor and the rags and tatters of the poor—the cursed drink dens were at the corners of every street —veritable plague-spots of sin and blasphemy. Was it any wonder that in England sixty thousand a year went down to a drunkards grave ? Did not their very hearts
2
3
bleed to think that such a state of things was possible in a civilised and a Christian land ? And that which was our curse at home was our disgrace abroad. The licensing system of the liquor traffic utterly thwarted the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy kingdom come.” What did the pagan races think of Christian liquor sellers? Those who had travelled in the East could tell how these Eastern nations dreaded the coming of Christianity and civilisation, because they associated with it the British national sin of intemperance.
The Curse of Alcohol Follows the Flag.
“They had a terrible responsibility resting upon them as citizens of this great Empire. They had a still weightier responsibility as followers of Jesus Christ. Those who were strong should help the weak. For the sake of God and their fellow-men, they should take up the cross of self-denial, and practise abstinence as an example and an encouragement to those who were weak. Sacrifice for others was the essence of true civilisation as it was the essence of Christianity itself.
Everyone in this land knows the vehemence with which Father Hays urged that the top line should be struck out of the old three-lined papers. With what double vehemence would he urge the National Issue, with its unparalleled opportunity.
FATHER JOHN O’BRIEN.
Father John O’Brien, of Cambridge, Mass., TJ.S.A.: —“I would say that No-License has been a great success in Cambridge. It removes temptation from the path of the young ; it saves our innocent children from the demoralising and often shameful scenes of the open-bar room. Profoundly conscious of my responsibility to God for the advice I offer in this matter, with a firm conviction that the interests ofreligion, morality, and good citizenship are involved, I say to all who hear my yoice: “Vote No-License.”
FATHER JAMES E. CASSIDY.
“In its fullest, widest, broadest, deepest, truest sense, the saloon of to-day is the personification of the flesh—the flesh that striveth to keep man in the darkness and daze of drunkenness, to multiply man’s burdens, to embitter man’s toil, to lessen man’s capacity and ability to labour, to dissipate man’s hard-earned wages, to corrupt, debauch, defraud man of his rights, to rob the family, to disrupt the home, to destroy the children—in a word, to make man go through life a drunken, dissipated, crawling thing. The flesh and the spirit! The saloon and the labour union! ‘For these are contrary one to the other.’ . .
0 Labour, Labour! In the words of your great leader Duncan: “March with heads erect, proud of your calling and your cause” But if you ever stamp upon your unstained banner the mark and sign and seal of the striped beast of the saloon, then march with heads bowed down, ashamed of your calling and your traitored cause But this perversion of the natural order shall never be effected. For the saloon lusteth against labour and labour lusteth against the saloon, “and these two are contrary one to the other.”
[Prom Sermon on “ The Saloon Against the Labour Union,” 1909.
THE CHURCH IN CANADA.
Following upon the first Plenary Council of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, which was held at Quebec from November 19 to December 1, 1910, a Pastoral Letter, signed by 7 Archbishops and 27 Bishops, was issued, from which we take the following:—
The Church, therefore, is not giving way to visionary fears in calling upon her children, and in banding them together beneath the standard of the Cross, to organise an energetic campaign against one of the most dangerous enemies of religion and country. In this she stands faithful to her office and to her traditions. . . . Almost everywhere the civil authorities have given their weighty co-operation, and have devoted themselves in a truly Christian spirit to the checking of this plague. It has, above all, been realised that traffic in intoxicating liquor should be suppressed, or where that is not possible, at least restricted and more severely controlled, and that legislation should be enacted on the point tending to restrain vice, and render easier the task of good citizens in averting danger and putting a stop to disorder.
These individual appeals, ranging from those 9 Cardinals and Archbishops to the lowliest parish priest, have behind them the entreaties of Pope Leo XIII. The recently-issued Catholic Encyclopaedia also, which embdies the scholarship of Holy Church, says:—
“From a sociological standpoint we are compelled, by incontrovertible evidence, to acknowledge that it (alcohol) is, of all causes, the most frequent source of poverty, unhappiness, divorce, suicide, immorality, crime, insanity, disease, and death.”
[Catholic Encyclopaedia” (1911), 1., 276.]
Happily, it is in our power now to drive this “most frequent source” of our social miseries away for ever.
IS* Let us all join in this great act of national selfsacrifice and of national Righteousness, and STRIKE OUT THE TOP LINE ON BOTH PAPERS ON DECEMBER 7th?
Printed tor the N.Z. Alliance, by W. J. Lankshear. Lambton Quay, Wgtr
N.Z. DOCTORS ON ALCOHOL.
Dr. A. J. ORCHARD, M.D., Dr. J. P. WHETTER, M.D.
The alcohol question is so complex, that it is difficult to deal with it in a manner which is both brief and comprehensive. We have therefore endeavoured to touch only a very few of those aspects which are of importance to HUMAN HEALTH IN GENERAL, and to the NERVOUS SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR.
Briefly, then, the body is made up of a vast number of individual cells, and the arrangement and modification of these cells produce the various organs and systems of the body, with their distinctive functions.
There is overwhelming evidence that alcohol readily alters the STRUCTURE of most of the CELLS of the body, and interferes with the various FUNCTIONS of the ORGANS, and especially with the highest functions, namely those which distinguish and produce the mind.
A human cell is composed of an elementary organic substance called protoplasm.” No matter what variety the cell belongs to, its main structure is made up of protoplasm.
Dr. Sims Woodhead, one of the Modern Leaders in Medical Science in England, and a professor at the University of Cambridge, says that we may accept this fact that ALL PROTOPLASM is injuriously affected by SMALL quantities of alcohol, and that, under certain conditions, there is such a marked interference with nutrition, power of movement and reproductive function, that even where death of the organism as a whole does not intervene, marked degenerative changes result, the animal under these conditions living on a lower plane than does the healthy organism into which no alcohol has been introduced. The injurious effect of alcohol upon the structure, as well as the function, of cells, has been proved by actual experiment.
The most important cells of the human body are those which compose the nervous system. This is readily understood when we remember that the brain, and spinal cord, and the nerves issuing from them, control every organ, structure and function. Without nerves there could be no movement of any part, nerves themselves would be useless, were they not to receive messages from the cells in the brain and spinal cord, from which the nerve fibres emerge.
Sims Woodhead speaks very emphatically about the effect of alcohol on nerve cells. He says that one of the most dangerous and characteristic eatures of the action of alcohol is its predilection for the central nervous 8} stem, i.e., the brain and spinal cord, the nerve cells being first excited, en rapidly passing through a period of depression, often very marked and
The increased mental activity has induced many of those who take alcohol to imagine that it has a specific and useful action.
It is a fact that a tired brain will derive a stimulus which is healthful from the mere drinking of water, but the more active excitement and exaltation produced by alcohol is followed by a marked and persistent depression.
This persistent depression causes a further desire, and so we have the familiar evidence of a great number of human beings who have constant desire, frequent depression, and again the ever-insistent desire for the stimulant, which will for the time remove the depression.
As larger measures of the stimulant are required to produce the same amount of stimulus, the body in general and the nervous system in particular, soon sustain structural damage.
Schmiedeberg, another eminent scientist, expresses the same truth in a somewhat different manner. He says that the apparent stimulation of mind and body first noticed after taking alcohol, must be due to an early paralysis of the highest centres, whereby reflective power and judgment are lost, and the normal control over the lower centres by the higher is destroyed. This is, of course, proved by the absurdities commonly practised by those who have indulged, as well as by the acts of violence which are frequently associated with heavy drinking.
Dealing with the effects of small quantities, he says that the toxic effect is so subtle and apparently so slight, whilst the temporary effect of well-being is so distinctly marked, that it is difficult to convince anyone that its action is bad.
Another scientist, Hopkins, says that the mischievous effects of small doses are exceedingly hard to observe and register day by day, although their consummation may ultimately bring about profound mischief.
Dealing with small doses, Sims Woodhead refers to the controversy among the general public and also amongst medical men, as to what should be considered a moderate and sufficient daily dose, and remarks that the more this is discussed, the smaller becomes the allowance. Not long ago, 2 ounces was regarded as a safe minimum ; but recently a German Society composed of leading Physicians, Physiologists and Hygienists, said that even half that amount is not to be recommended, and that it is a fact, that alcohol in any form, whether brandy, wine or beer, is a poison to the human body.
There is an enormous mass of expert evidence to the same effect. Volumes have been written or are being written on the same subject with the same conclusions.
It is inevitable that where destructive cell changes have occurred, there must be a corresponding disturbance of function. To enter upon a description of the infinite manifestations of disease produced by the destructive effects of alcohol within the body, would be altogether outside the province of this brief paper; but as the nervous system is, as already stated, of such commanding importance, it is of value to refer to alcohol in its relation to the central nervous system.
A Russian expert speaks forcibly upon this aspect of the question. He says that alcohol diminishes the rapidity of thought, makes the imagination and power of reflection commonplace, and transforms refined and complex sensations into coarse and elementary ones, and so disposes men to strife and crime, and upsets habits of work and perseverance.
This conclusion is obvious and a matter of common observation.
The prolonged or increased action of alcohol in this direction, soon gives us ample evidence of Alcoholic Insanity, and those scientists who deal with mental diseases are unanimous in pronouncing alcohol a fertile cause of insanity.
For instance, Petersen, of New York, President of the N.Y. State Commission on Lunacy, says that alcohol is “FOUR TIMES as frequent a factor in the insanity of MALES, as of females,” and when we remember that drunkenness is far more frequent amongst males, the bearing of this remark is manifest. The special effect is noticed in weakness of memory and of will; slowness of perception and judgment; loss of moral and cultivated sense, and occasional states of depression or sudden fits of anger. These conclusions are commonplaces in the world of medical science.
Clouston, of Edinburgh, a great man amongst great scientists, is even more emphatic. He says ;
“From the medical and scientific point of view, we have this great physiological fact before us: that the first thing alcohol does, in 99 cases out of 100, is to affect the mental working of the brain of the man who imbibes.”
Heredity.
It is natural to suppose that children may inherit defects from their parents. This is a fact of every-day experience. Dealing with alcohol in its relations to the children of alcoholics, the medical superintendent of the Lancashire County Lunatic Asylum says :
“It is undeniable that drinking habits in the parents tend to produce in the children a condition of nervous instability, which often culminates in epilepsy and insanity; and every year we have cases admitted in which the sole cause of the insanity has been intemperance in the parents. This is, indeed, one of the saddest aspects of the drink question —the burden which so many people have to carry with them through life, on account of the drinking habits of their progenitors.”
Dr. Maudsley, in his book, “ Responsibility in Mental Diseases,” writes: — “ There is a destiny made for man by his ancestors and no one can elude, were he able to attempt; it, the tyranny of his organisation.”
A graphic and tragic illustration of inherited degeneration is given by Bussell in A Plea for Posterity.” Referring to the Jurke family, he gives an appalling record. Frau Jurke was a chronic drunkard, and lived from 1740 to 1800. Of her 834 descendants, 709 were traced ; of them
106 were illegitimate,
142 „ beggars,
64 „ charges of the State,
181 „ prostitutes,
69 „ convicted criminals;
and it was estimated that during a period of 75 years they cost the State £250,000.
Le Grain says that of 814 children of alcoholic parents, 322 were degenerates and 174 died young. Of the survivors 17 per cent, were epileptics, and 14 per cent, had other nervous weakness.
Such analysis of the DIRECT and INDIRECT effects of alcohol convinces on? of its tremendous power for evil.
It is so dangerous to individuals and communities that its use as a beverage is opposed to common sense and reason.
To prepare it in palatable and alluring forms adds immeasurably to its danger.
There are innumerable side-issues which time and the space at our disposal prevent us from following up. Suicide is one of them. Our own experience is that nearly every case of suicide that has come under our notice in the course of medical practice has been an alcoholic.
This is readily accounted for by the profound depression from which alcoholics frequently suffer.
Finally, we would say that alcohol is a poison; that it is almost, if not quite, unnecessary in medical practice; that the human organism is peculiarly susceptible to its influence; that it creates a craving for itself; that at the same time it so weakens the will power that that craving cannot be successfully resisted, so that innumerable people become hopelessly dominated and ultimately destroyed by it; that its harmful effects are transmissible to children ; that it profoundly weakens the resistance of the human body to the action of very many diseases; and that it is immeasurably the biggest curse with which the human race has to contend.
A. J. ORCHARD, M.D
J. P. WHETTER, M.D,
Sir Victor Horsley, the eminent physician, in addressing a crowded audience at Whitfield’s Tabernacle one Sunday afternoon on “ The Making of the Nation,” said that the moral principle which lay at the bottom of prosperity of the British Empire was self-sacrifice: and that now, at this critical period of the country’s history, that was the quality specially demanded of citizens. Self-sacrifice, he went on, should begin at home; and the greatest legislative act of any Government for many years past was the granting of old-age pensions, which helped to preserve the home. From the point of view of the individual and of the children, in the making of the nation, Sir Victor thought total abstinence stood first as a salient point in home self-sacrifice and home education.
W. J. Lankshear, Printer, Lambton Quay, Wellington
363.41 ADA 1911
Adams, A. S. (Alexander Samuel), 1861-1937. Professor Salmond's blunder: prohibition, an effective social reform : a reply/by A.S. Adams.
363.41 ADA 1911
Adams, A. S. (Alexander Samuel), 1861-1937. Professor Salmond's blunder: prohibition, an effective social reform : a reply/by A.S. Adams.
Please return this item to:
Document Supply Services National Library of New Zealand PO Box 1467 Wellington
Supplied at no charge from the collections of the National Library of New Zealand.
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NEW ZEALAND
Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa
363.41 ADA 1911
Adams, A. S. (Alexander Samuel), 1861-1937. Professor Salmond's blunder: prohibition, an effective social reform : a reply / by A S. Adams.
FOO2 0 6 7
PLEASE INSURE
HQ (R)
N.Z. GOVHRMENT NATIONAL LIBRARY OF NEW ZEALAND
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/books/ALMA1911-9917502053502836-A-reply-to--Prohibition-a-blunde
Bibliographic details
APA: Wood, Robert. (1911). A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder'. New Zealand Alliance.
Chicago: Wood, Robert. A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder'. Wellington, N.Z.: New Zealand Alliance, 1911.
MLA: Wood, Robert. A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder'. New Zealand Alliance, 1911.
Word Count
153,532
A reply to 'Prohibition a blunder' Wood, Robert, New Zealand Alliance, Wellington, N.Z., 1911
Using This Item
Out of copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, copyright in this book has expired.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.