The Temperance Debate

Auckland Star, Volume x, Issue 2781, 2 April 1879, Page 3

The Temperance Debate

IN pursuance of previous notice, the temperance debate between three members of St. James's Mutual Improvement Class aud an equal number of representatives of the Total Abstinence Society took place last evening iv the Lome-street Hall, under the presidency of his Worship the Mayor. The building was crowded by the partisans of either body.

The Chairman introduced the subject of debate by a reference to its very wide bearings, and to tin; important issues which it involved. He bespoke for the debaters a calm and dispassionate hearing, and then recommended them to adhere as closely as possible to the point of dispute, taking care not to be betrayed into a consideration of matters of secondary or minor importance by any weakness in the argument of an opponent. The question he stated to be this, " Ought tlie Liquor Trallic to be Suppressed by Law ? " Affirmative : Total Abstinence Society ; Negative : St. James' Mutual Improvement Association. Forty niinutu.-i would be allowed the opener on each wide, and to the other debaters thirty minutes each would be allotted.

The Key. S. Edger, 8.A., on rising to open the debate 011 the affirmative side, was received with considerable applause. He prefaced his speech with a statement of what lines he would adhere to, and what conditions he would observe in the course of his contention. /He then weut on to say that four points required to be established before the question could be demonstrated, aud until one of those four points was invalidated by their opponents in debate, the argument remained good and .sound. They were : (1) " Does the thing want doing ?"—because if it did not, it would be great folly to attempt to do it by law. (2.) " Can tbo law do j r , •>» ; O r it would ,bo equally foolish for the law to attempt a thing it could not ell'ect. (3) "Init n, legitimate function of the law to do it "/"'Because many of the things it could do ura uuadvisiible for it to do. [4) Supposing all these things could be done—supposing the law could do them in its legitimate functions, then it might be asked, in doing them, " Would ilia law create any concurrent evik that would overbalance the good of doing them '!" Because it whs finite possible that the law by doing it might lie iloing a bad tiling, which would ovorwrigli all the good contained ill it. The .speaker then entered upon a graphic description of the evib resulting from the liquor trallic. for its cUecta upon life he cited England an an example. There GO,OOO lives were annually sacrificed directly to the liquor trallic, aud indirectly the number might be computed at 120,000 lives. The rev. gentleman passed on to .show how the law might remedy such evils, indicated the expediency, socially and politically, of suppressing the trallic, and then recited the principal benefits which would result from such a course. One third o£ the revenue, he assisted, was derived from the sale of alcoholic liquor trallic, aud this vast account would be saved to the people. In England the annual direct expenditure upon alcoholic liquors was £150,000,000, but the actual annual loss to the people was £300,000,000. The gentleman concluded with a fervid appeal on behalf of total abstinence. Mr Schmidt was the opener on the negative side of the question. After complimenting the Key. Mr Edgar upon the eloquence of his speech he besought for himself and colleagues the sympathy and consideration of the audience,iu the exposition of tlie views they had undertaken to uphold and defend. In their desire for temperance, and not total nbstinancc they were inspired by as sincere and conscientious motives as their antagonists, whose erroneous ideas they regretted. Temperance he held to mutiu a wise use, and a perfect control over indulgence, and a man, he averred, could only b-i temperate by lukowu volition. Take away his will in the matter and he ceased to be temperate, aud in taking away his temperance you took away his independence. It would be an extreme aud tyrannical measure for the Government to step in and put a stop to the liquor traflic simply because there were people who abused the privilege. Why should temperate people be made to suffer for the abuses and evils of the intemperate 2 A king who forced his subjects to thiuk as he thought, aud act as he acted, was a despot; and the government which did the samo was a despotic government. Thay were often told of the salutary oiiect of the MaiaojjLiquor Laws,

bit it was not so widely known that an extrusive system of sly grog selling went on in that State. Many were also told that ' there was less crime in the State of Maine than in the other States of the Union, but perhaps the Jess revealed crime was meant. The Kcv. Mr Edger had been careful to inform them that (ji/,000 lives were annually , sacrificed iv ttugluud to alcohol, but ho had : neglected to state how many Jives it had saved. Agaiu.be hud said that £300,000,000 was spent anuually through the liquor trallic, but he had not deemed it, necessary to calculate what proportion of this amount ! was obtained by the Government and couseI ([ueutly heuuu'led the neople at large. The speaker then went on to deal with the mcdi- ! cinal qualites of alcohol and to point out ' that it would become more of a wholesome stimulant if tbe iniquitous taxation were taken oil it. The imposition of taxes had ! driven the manufacturers to intensify its | stimulating powers so that it might be sold in smaller quantities, aud at enhanced prices. Mr Solomon ITcmus (Total Abstinence Society) was the next speaker. He took up the statement of the preceding speaker, that alcohol was a wholesome stimulant, and proceeded to show that it was not so, but that it inllicted more pain aud suffering upon the human race than any other known cause; This gentleman's speech was of a conversational character. It was full of quaint remarks, and thickly interlarded with anecdotes. One of those may be cited: lie said that when in Nelson lately a settler ot :i() years standing, who was not a teetotaller, told him that during all that time not one of the licensed victuallers of Nelson hail died a natural death.

Mr W. .). Napier introduced his argument by a lengthy narrative of the eftorts made to arrange the debute, iv the course of which the total abstainers wore charged with pusillanimity, and the daring and couragconsness of St. James' Class held up to public admiration. The gentleman then entered into the question of debate, contending that the State had no right to legislate ;against the will of the majority, for ii could not ho denied that the total abstainers were in the minority, lie denied the right of any legislature to rcstiiet Ihe personal freedom of the people, or to regulate their appetites, passions, or actions, m> long as they had no criminal issues. With great clearness the debater showed that a repressive measure would be extreme tyranny, that it would entail financial loss upou the country, that it would be the means of imposing greater burdens upon the people, audjfurthor that, the repression of the liquor trallic was impossible. The Chairman closed the proceedings by thanking the audience for its excellent and sustained attention and by announcing that it would be continued on Friday evening.