No-License Campaign.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume xxii, Issue 6699, 17 October 1905, Page 2

No-License Campaign.

REPLY TO MR H. M. STEWART.

On Monday, October 9th, the Bey. E. Walker (by request) attended the meeting at the eohoolhouso, Cliortsey, to hear Mr K. M. Stewart spoak against the No-license policy, in order to reply to him on the following Monday in the sime place. This ho did last evsniu^. Mr Stewart, Mr "Waikor said, opened "by correctly stating tbah the dominant queation at tho forthcoming election would bo that of license oc no-Hconse, 1 and himself ohimoci to represent the■" moderates,' who ho sp.iil w.'io the great majority. Mr Walker said as yet they had heard nothing else but of " moderates " on the other side. It was the name by which all tepreseatative3 of tha trade called themselves, and all Mr Stewart's arguments were old stock trade arguments. Mr Stewart wished them to exercise their reason and not allow themselves to be dominated and covered by the no license p.»rly. The suggestion that the no license party ever did, or ever had the power to exercise any influence over voters, except by an appeal to their reason, Bounded very funny, not to cay ridiculous. What did all their leoturing and all their literature mean except an appeal to reason ? and who in Mr Stewart's audience would be simple enough to suppose than any voter would do anything but follow his own judgment at the ballot box? But it waa the old dodge—if your argument was weak to make tip for it by prejudicial suggestion. As to the moderates being the great majority, there waa no doubt that a great majority of the moderate drinkers were keen sympathisers with the no license policy, and that at the forthcoming election their votes would be cast that way, as so many of them were at the former polls. Mr Stewart said that the habit of drinking was very ancient and that you could not stop it by Acts of Parliament, or a stroke of a pen. This, Mr Walker said, was one of the common half-truths which deceived only ill trained or prejudice blinded minda, and required similar minds to use them honestly. Habits- and appetites were, not necessarily permanent because they were ancient. Christianity and civilisation had completely destroyed ancient ' cannibal habits and appetites for human blood, and often civilised legislation had no little share in the, process. As intoxicating liquors were poisonous liquors, Mr Walker had no doubt that our ever rising civilisation and progress would yet do its beneficial work effectively in relation to the alcoholic habit and appetite, however moderate, and that in this beneficent process legislation would gives powerfnl hand. But Mr Stewart, Mr Walker said, ridiculed the poisonous effect of alcohol by saying it must be a very slow poison considering how nations and individuals survived it 3 use. He replied that it was destructiveneos to life which constituted poisonousness, and that there were many degrees of potency short of fatal effect which the constitution might continuously resist, but never without some loss to vitality, ho wever apparently small, or not at all apparent. But Mr Stewart tried to wriggle out of the difficulty by instituting what he knew to ba an unfair and invidious and therefore odious comparison, by asking whether your teetotal friend is in any respect a better man. thatryour moderate drinking friend. He might'be better or worse quite independent of the drink question. Indeed the question as put was very much and rightly resented, but was not amended. The candid way of putting the question would be—ls any individual, whoever or whatever he may be, tha better for leaving alcohol alone; or would he; however moderate he may be," be the better if he left it alone ? ; To this there is only one answer, every time'—yes. If he were honest, and a good father, neighbour, and friend, .as a moderate drinker, he will not be less so as an abstainer, but would be less in danger of, becoming, through drink, a bad father, neighbour, and friend, and so would improve his position morally and socially. Would he ;be>< the better physically ?—undoubtedly. The ■ Life Insurance Companies were not sentimental societies, but were rua on hard business line 3 and they said that other things being equal he would be safer for a longer life than as a moderate drinker, so they took him for a smaller premium. Would he be a better man physically 1 Again, yes. Dr Paris said— " The alcohol contained in wine and fermented liquors coagulates a portion of the gastric juice." Dr J". fit. McCullooh said —'• It is highly mischievous to drink alcoholic liquors during meals, and the idea that they assist or promote digestion isa perfect dalusion." Dr Brewster s*id it is common enough belief that a drink after meals promotes digestion. But there cannot be a more erroneous opinion," and Sir Frederick Treves, our King's present physician, said—'Alcohol is not an appetiser, and even in small quantities hinders digestion.' But Mr Stewart of course knew better, whioh only proved what the scientists said, namely that a man must distrust his senses and his judgment in proportion to the alcohol! he takes. Hall Cains said that alcohol was the greatest hypnotist of the age. Mr Stewart apparently represented the great body of the moderatalyhypootised. Truly they were a great multitude. That gentleman then proceeded to say that all the foremost nations of the world were consumers of alcohol. After the addresssome one asked if they were great because they consumed alcohol. But he said hedid not state that, so the only inferencewas the right one, that they were great in spite of the liquor by reason of the degreein whioh they were Christianised. But the great reserve force of his address was brought up for an onslaught upon what he. represented as the inconsistencies of L. flir. Isitt,.T.B.- Taylor, and the organised prohibitionists. But the whole force of his onslaught was in hia representations being gro3s and grotesque misrepresentations. Long before the trades* legislative trap known as ' olausa 9.was heard of the attitude of the prohibitionists was reliance upon legislation to deal with; the liquor traffic, subject to the popular vote, and upon naaral suasion to deal with individual total abstinenoe. The two things were distinct and properly dealt withi separately—the one on the political platform and the other at the temperance meeting. But when Mr Stewart said that the no license advocate does not mind how much liquor you drink, only you must not traffic in it in a no license district, because at a no license meeting such an advocate had told the people that the no license vote does not compel anyone to, be a tee-, totaller, Mr Stewart either gjossly deceived himself, or must; hava known that h© grossly libelled men who were as earnest in their teetotal xaoral suasion as they were in their advooaoy of a no license public policy. It waa to prevent the great body of moderate drinkers from voting bo license that the trade upheld the "no license no liquor " clause. They were the inconsistent party and the real personal cosrcionists, and Mr Stewart spoke their language and voiced their spirit. Even the clause he quoted from Mr Taylor's Bill, which, was in the Government's National Option Bill long before it was in Mr Taylor's, could only deceive audiences which had not read ihe> whole of the Bill, whioh provided for the same {facility for non-teetotalers to .make their own fermented drinks, but not 'to ' traffic in them, whioh prevailed ia every no licensa or prohibition Stats or district in the English, speaking world. Mr Stewarfc appealed to.4he failure of prohibition iv the United States, where the ground lost to State prohibition was being, raoce thais overtaken by no license looal option, ami that against odds oc continuous alien im>

migration from Europe such as this country knew nothing- of. There was much to> be siid on the other side in explanation, and Mr Walker appealed to the pronounced success of no license in this country where our own police returns and business men and local ministers could tell us of its ' benefits; and to the great fact that every succeeding poll showed that it increasingly commended itself to public judgment. But sly gc°B selling in no license districts was Mie great bogey of the address. They were told that a raid was made upon 12 places and that there were 7 convictions wifehin 10 months after dosing the public* bare in Ashburton—that 7 premises ceased to be» licensed, and k dozen siy gcog shops started. Bat the fact was that some,, if riot all/ of + the sly grogshops were known to.be runnjag at the same time that licenses existed. Sufc : since the closing of the lioensed bars chese- ; other places had been more closely watched. It would, however, be very difficult to. iin<S a dozen to-day. Everyone of „£iia sevea persons convicted and fined knew fchat fora, second conviotion he .would gp to- gaol without the option of a i«na, ihat being the law for a No-LieeEwa district, B?ery licensee who boM contrary to la^ on Suaj days, and after hours,- and to persona I already drunk was a slf grog seller, but ho could carry on more safely under shelter of his license. The sly-grog business was 'thus enormously reduced by oarryinff No License, nnd to open the bars again would only be to again increase tho evil. Oa & single Sunday more sly grog selling was done on liounsed premises than at tha: present time was done in a month with fear. and trembling in th^ f«w vwtUoeme^

placpn. One of the silliest things said by Mr Stewart was that the open bar was the beßfc preventive of drinking among women.. Let him go to England, where this vice prevailed, and he would find women as frequently as men drinking open'y at the bar. It was not closing tho bars but beeping them open which had wrought the mischief there, and this country would do well to take warning by that fact, and close thara without delay. Already in New Zealand there were licensed houses where private drinking rooms for women were provided, end it ouly needed a little more of that to give to the women the courage of the open bar. And why not ? If ifc was fit for men, it was fit for them. Bat if it was fit for neither, vote it away. Mr Stewart said that if you gave up the drink habit on economis grounds you must en the ssmo grounds give up all oth9r social habits. Mr Walker exposed the folly of this statement by showing how diUorontly the liquor traffic affected labour and other commercial interests from any other trade, and how disastrously.

Other aspects of the question were presented and questions were answernd, and brief addresses were given by Miss Lill and Mrs Wright, and with the usual vote? of thanks a most successful meeting was brought to a close.