WHO ARE TO BE BLAMED?

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXI, Issue 5696, 27 June 1902, Page 2

WHO ARE TO BE BLAMED?

! TO THE EDITOR. Sir.—That the baneful effects of the liquor traffic are becoming more and more obvious, must I think be conceded by all. The Sergeant of Police m Auckland says that the arrests for drunkenness m the Auckland Licensing District have more than doubled m that district since 1898 ; and the editor of the "Lyttelton Times" says —" We are afraid that the statement which the Sergeant of Police made to the Auckland Licensing Committee yesterday, that the amount of drunkenness has largely increased, more than doubled, during the past four or five years, might with some truth be applied to every large community m the colony," An eye witness ~not a prohibitionist—says he saw six boys, between Cathedral Square and Strangers Corner, on Peace nig;ht, so drunk that several of them ceuldn't walk without assistance Their ages averaged from 12 to 14 years." And, sir, we are acquainted, m a measure, with the state of things m our own district. Now, sir, who ate to blame for this state of things ? Some say the No-license folk are. Well, sir, they must be a bad lot if they are responsible for all the drunkenness and consequent poverty, misery, and crime, etc., which are to be seen around us. But are they 1 And what should they do to mend matters ? Some tell them they ought to see that pure drink is sold. Others say that they ought to see that the law against drunkenness is enforced. Other's hold that they ought to go m for State control. Others say that they ought to buy the publicans and brewers out and then stop the traffic. And others yet, that they ought to leave the traffic alone, and if people will go to the devil through drink, let them go—it's none of their business. I think, sir, you will agree that to please all these is a rather big order. But, for whom does this traffic exist ? Not for the No-license party. They don't want it. Not for the drunkards. It wouldn't be maintained an hour for them. For whom then does it exist ? Why, for the moderates of course. It is for their convenience that licenses are granted, for their convenience that we are confronted on every nand by the open bar —of which Bishop Julius, and the big majority of ministers of religion m Canterbury, said, prior to last poll, that it was a disgrace to our civilisation and Christianity —for their convenience that our homes are menaced and our boys and girls exposed to nameless horrors; for their convenience that we are compelled to help to maintain police, gaols, lunatic asylums and hospitals, etc., which are to a large extent made necossary through the influence of the traffic; for their convenience that we have to pay large sums to old age pensioners, who never would have required such aid had it not been for the traffic; for their convenience that we have to pay an extra percentage on our goods to cover the bad debts of the men who take their money to the public house instead of taking it to their wives; for their convenience that men, women, boys and girls are being done to death and many of thorn hurled into a hopeless eternity ; and yet, m the face of all this we are told that we ought to join hands with those m whose selfish interests the traffic is maintained and help them to regulate it. The only effective way of regulating a traffic like this, sir, is to regulate it off the face of the earth, and this we mean to do by the help of God. Individually numbers of these moderates —from whose ranks all drunkards come— ' j tell us that they don't mind for their own part how soon the traffic is abolished for all the drink they have, they can do without ' it. But, sir, they don't do without it, and they vote oontinuance, and thus, rather than I practice a little self-denial, they deliberately sign what is equivalent to the death warrant of many of their fellowcreatures, some of whom are their own flesh and blood. In his "American Notes," page 121, Rudyard j Kipling, the English author who has obtained a world-wide celebrity, tells how m a concert hall m Buffalo, he saw two young men get two girls drunk, and then lead them reeling down a dark street. Mr Kipling has not been a total abstainer, but of that scene he writes .—"Then recanting previous opinions, I became a Prohibitionist. Better it is that a man should go without his beer m public places, and content himself with swearing at the narrow-minded-ness of the majority; better it is to poison the inside with very vile temperance drinks, and to 'buy lager furtively at back doors than to bring temptation to the lips of young folks, such as the four I had seen. I understand now why preachers rage against drink. I have said' There is no harm mit taken moderately,' and yet my own demand for beer helped directly fta send t/iesetivo girls reeling down the dwfk street ~ Qod aline, knows to whn% end. If liquor is worth drinking, it is worth a little trouble to come at—such a trouble as a man will undei'go to compass his own desires. It is not good that we should let it lie before the eyes of children and I have been a fool *& writing to the contrary." The Divine injunction runs' " Judge ye this rather that no man put a stumbling bipek m his irolker's way qv an occasion of falling." Then let us— Rescue the little ones, care for the children, Strong diLik no more must our country enthral ; From our weak brothers' way, sweep the vile drink-shops, Strike out the top-line for safety for all. Rescue the .Publicans, care for the Brewers, Pity the drink-sellers, both great and small j Think of their boys and girls, save them j from ruin, 1 Strike out the top-line m kindness to all. I am, &c, Thos. Fee. Wesleyan Parsonage. ■