"IS PROHIBITION A FAILURE IN AMERICA?"

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 149, 25 June 1889, Page 2

"IS PROHIBITION A FAILURE IN AMERICA?"

A very able essay on the subject, "Is Prohibition a Failure ?" was delivered by the Rev. James Chew before a crowded audience at Robson's Rooms last evening, Mr J. T. Garlick presiding. Mr Chew said the query, " Is Prohibition a Failure?" would strike many as somewhat melancholy, every other attempt that had been made to deal with the liquor traffic having proved a failure. Prohibition was their laat scheme, and were this plan defeated, all would be gone, save the spiritual power of the Gospel. Perhaps the question was rather premature, prohibition not yet having had a proper trial, while the conditions under which the trials had been made were even less satisfactory. Every opposition and obstruction which a perverted ingenuity, born of rage and malice, could invent, had been employed to thwart the operation of the beneficent measure. Breathing out threatenings and slaughter, opponents had not stuck at scorn and abuse, misrepresentation and viilification, but had resorted to violence, to the knife, tha revolver, and dynamite. In the last American city in which he resided the prosecuting attorney had hi 3 house biown up over his head because he dared to enforce the prohibitory law. Would it be surprising then if there had been nothing but failures? The tests had derived but little more advantage from localities. These had always been contiguous to the enemy. country, and traditional border wars had been the consequence. Given a fair field, prohibitionists would ask for. no favour, but the fields hitherto assigned them had usually been both too small and too near the far-reaching landa of antiquated farmers who wanted no new-fangled notions, and no methods of husbandry close to their estates; who therefore hired Wretched hinds co break down the intervening fences, permitted, yea, incited, their hounds, and sheep, and cattle, and swine, to roam at will over the new-comers' bits of ground, trampling or uprooting the young grain. This was not a fanciful picture, as all could testify who had watched the manoeuvres of publicans and sinners in the vicinity of all the towns in the United Kingdom where the Sunday Closing Bill had been applied, in all countries aud provinces in Canada where local option had been extended, in all the States of America wherein prohibition had been exacted. The river towns of Missouri, particularly St. Joseph and Kansas City, had become proverbial for the badpre-eminenreof thoircitizens in all such nefarious transactions. One of the most encouragingsigns for the success of prohibition was.as one writer had put it, "tjie alarm which is sounding along the lines of the organised liquor dealers," and from this alone it could be seen that prohibition in America was a progressing success, the enemies of the law themselves being the judges. It did not entirely extirpate drinking, but it was not therefore a failure. A Canadian writer had said that a prohibitory law could do five things. It could pronounce the verdict of the country's disapproval upon a ruinous and baneful traffic, and thus brar.d ifc wifch public disgrace. It could relieve the country of the sin and responsibility of turning its children into drunkards. It could put away all public temptations and drinking and drunkenness, and thus make it as easy as possible for all to grow up into sober and honourable citizenship. It could prevent men, whom no moral considerations seemed to influence, from making it their sole business to induce their fellows to tipple • and drink, so as thereby to live upon their degradation and ruin. It could elevate law into righteousness, and thus make it a continual teacher and supporter of sobriety and justice. In April last there was a general election in Canada,*afc which the Temperance Act was decisively reversed by the popular vote after a trial of several years, bufc this was neither so astouddihg no„ so discouraging lis it'at first appeared, for it was reported that " the feSult was largely.due to-the apathy of the temperance people^ who were disgusted with the non-enforcement of the Act." The Anti-Drink Army there had been disorganised, if not disbanded, and fchey in Auckland needed no foreigner to inform them how local option was easily defeated, though its patrons Were a majority, if half of them flung down their arms on a voting day. But, far from being disheartened, he was more hopeful of national prohibition from this reverse. In Canada the good oauso had been for the moment retrogressive. New Brunswick adopted a prohibitory law in 1855, but this, owing to political c6mplloation,was repealed before it

hada fairchanceof proving effective." When, alter confederation, reports recommending the enactment of a similar law for the whole dominion were adopted by both Houses, progress was blocked by a question of jurisdiction. Two years were consumed by the Courts in determining the quality of the Act, two more by an appeal to the Judicial Committee pf the Privy Council of Great Britain, and since 188_, when a definite judgment was givefi, three distinct attempts had been made in Parliament in impair its efficiency. The first prohibiten !iw in the United States was enacted in lou_, and was repealed in 1855, and in 1858 it was re-enacted. The progress all along, however, had been real, while often retarded—slow, bub sure. It was hoped that by repeal of the Scott Act in Canada the citizens generally would take decided action towards bringing about "high license or prohibition." He (Mr Chew) hoped it would be prohibition ; he had little faith in any such license, however high it might be. Vice was vice. however gilded, and the more.respectable the evil was made the more insidious and injurious it might become. In the State in which he sojourned for some five years they had local option, and, in places, intoxication, bub after an absence of ten years they had absolute prohibition, and no sign of intoxication, save in two or three cities Which resisted the law for a time, but had since been brought into captivity. The State of Massachusetts formed a terrible example. There, after a stringent license law, the moral results to the State were such that the State Governor recommended a return to prohibition before the year was out. The Legislature agreeing with him, the license law was repealed and bhe prohibition law of 1869 was passed. Then' a clause permitting the sale of " light wines" and " malts" was tacked on, and effectively hampered the working of the Act, as under the guise of beer all kinds of liquor could be sold with impunity. In 1873 the beer clause was repealed, bub in 1874 the liquor influence was so strong bhat the prohibitory law was repealed. A license law, with local option clauses, was enacted in 1875, and had since been in operation. In Massachusetts the cost of pauperism under license was 83 per cent, more than under prombition, and drunkenness and insanity increased in a corresponding degree. Events which had occurred in Massachusetts within the last twelve years afforded a fair illustration of the chequered history of temperance legislation, and the notoriously unsatisfactory effect of "low" or "high" license, of the abundant reason social reformers in Canada and everywhere have for expecting the issue of retrograde action must sooner or later be to so disgust all right-minded people as to compel them to Co-operate for universal and final ptohibition as never before. In furbher illustration of his argument, Mr Chew stated that Maine, once the poorest State in the Union, was now oneof the most prosperous, and the liquor traffic there Was practically unknown. He alsoquotedtheexperienceof other States, all tending in the same direction, notably lowa and Kansas, backed up his statement by numerous authorities, and said in conclusion that these suggestive facts appealed alike to the reason and conscience of the people. They had reconciled those who doubted their success and silenced those who opposed, the policy of prohibiting the liquor traffic. Sir William Fox followed with additional arguments in support of prohibition, and the hour being then late, ib was resolved to defer further discussion of the subject till Monday evening next.