(To the Editor.)

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 248, 26 October 1897, Page 2

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—Last Friday's "Star" contained letters from the above-named gentleman and a sub-leader of your own, warmly espousing his cause, and condemning tht actions of the leaders of the Prohibition cause in the colony. I have known Mj W. some years, and believe that jealousy ! and spleen are now prompting himinthf j course he is adopting.^ The Prohibition. I movement would never have been espoused las it now is had there not been life piy. I into it entirely outside of the efforts to ad- | vance it made by that gentleman. It i honesty he should have sent you enclosed, ! which I cut from " Prohibitionist " oi \ October 2nd, two days after he posted I his letter to the "Prohibitionist/1 and-. I before the Editor (who was absent! ' could have seen his letter. His te i you is dated 16 days later, October ISth, j When in. Christchurch some years since I j know Mr Walker was good at collecting. • but utterly failed to command an audience i when he lectured. The Sydenham people ' have done more to awaken enthusiasm for ! prohibition than Mr Walker has or eve* could do. His present attitude leads onr much to doubt his sincerity in the past. li Save me from my friends " may well be adapted to one who is now, to use his owe language, " dragging the cause h th* mixe.'"' Why has he not accepted the ofiet made if he really cares a fig for the success of the prohibition movement in the colony, which one is led to doubt from his present action.—l am, etc., J. Peckoyee. Fctob.er.2sth, 1897. [The cutting from the "Prohibitionist* of October 2nd, which Mr Peckover has forwarded simply confirms Mr Walker's statements, for it shows that while ample space could readily be found for slanderous j assertions about the Premier, unsupported by a tittle of evidence, a moderate refutation like that forwarded by Mr Walker received very different treatment. Mr i Peckovers allegations of unworthymotna- ! against Mr Walker also bear out the latter I gentleman's statement that he has shared ' the fate of all others who dare to differ from the high priests of prohibition—that the most malignant insinuations are now made against his motives and conduct Our correspondent may rely E^on it that this arrogant and self-righteous spirit is doing the teetotal .cause more injury than all the assaults of its avowed enemies. It is arousing to active revolt and opposition thousands who were formerly either indifferent or inclined to look favourably upon the enforcement of rigid restriction! upon the liquor trade. For a parallel to the attitude of bigoted intolerance and dietorial denial of the right of private judgment in a purely ethical matter which some champions of prohibition assume, we have to go back to the ecclessiastical domica^ tion of the middle ages.—Ed., E.S.]