GENERAL BOOTH AND PROHIBITION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 87, 14 April 1899, Page 2

GENERAL BOOTH AND PROHIBITION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The Auckland public should feel grateful for the very able, forceful, yet temperate letter by Mr C. Palk in your issue of Tuesday under the heading 'General Booth and Prohibition,' in which the General is quoted as having said that personally he would be sorry to see that measure carried unless by such an overwhelming majority that it would be settled for ever. As no doubt a great deal of. weight will be given to this opinion, it is necessary to consider what an overwhelming -majority is, and as it is an indefinite term it.will vary very much in the minds of different people, and according to their desire for or objection to the extinction of the liquor traffic. As General Booth also said: 'We are all prohibitionists, and our people will vote prohibition to a man,' it is obvious that hewould not desire a larger vote to be necessary than would fairly settle the question for a considerable time, as it is quite certain that no majority, however large, could Settle any question with certainty for ever, as Mr Palk so ably demonstrates. Every question is always open and subject to jhe change of public opinion, and will be dealt with according to the manner in which it is appreciated by 'the people. As a matter of right, the people undoubtedly have the claim to settle this question by a bare majority vote, but as a matter of expediency it may be preferable to fix a reasonable majority that it would be necessary to obtain before prohibition can be carried; and, having been carried, the same majority to be necessary in favour of restoring licenses before any could be granted.

Now, wo have no doubt all seen a tug-of-war, in which both sides agree beforehand that there shall be a, certain length of neutral territory; the handkerchief tied on the rope is placed over the centre of the contested ground, and either side must pull the other a certain distance from the centre before it can win. It is a fair arrangement for both sides, and no doubt settles the strength of the opposing teams more decisively than one single pull from the centre could do. The only question, however, to •decide is what a fair length of neutral territory- is, and Iconteiid that under the present Act it is far too great, and very much less than 6000 votes to 4000 should be considered an overwhelming majority, and that if the people poll 5560 votes in favour of prohibition as against 4500 for continuance of liquor licenses, or in that proportion in any constituency, that the majority should havp their way, otherwise it is distinctly a minority that would rule and not a majority. Therefore, let the' law be altered so as to require a 55 per cent, majority instead of a 60 per cent, majority as at present, and that ought to satisfy all reasonable people' on both sides; but prohibitionists should not be satisfied with less.

My opinion is, we should if possible come to an agreement on this question, and if opponents to prohibition will not agree to a 55 per cent, majority, then let us contend for our right to carry the question by a bare majority.

I desire to strongly emphasise the necessity of making the vote applicable as a test, not only in each constituency but in each island North and South, so that whichever got it first would secure a great honour and would be a grand object lesson to the other and to the whole world.'

There is another objection to a large majority. If ever public opinion veered round from a trial of prohibition back to anywhere near .a three-fifths majority in favour of licenses it would be impossible

to keep the law -long before such a majority in favour of licenses again could be secured, and one of the strongest arguments used by advocates for a large majority being necessary is that the law could not be kept in face of a Strong public opinion against any existing law.—l am, etc., J. E. TAYLOR.

(To the Editor.)'

Sir,—l carefully read your ably written sub leader re Mr Palk'S letter, and I most cordially agree with every word of it. Having perused your article I next waded through the correspondence referred to, and at once jumped to the conclusion that Mr Palk was wofully ignorant of the subject tie was writing about. In Canada a modified form of prohibition, embodied in what is known in the Dominion as the 'Scott Act,' was accorded a good fair trial, and was repealed because it was utterly impossible to enforce it, owing' to the hundred and one evasions of its legal enactments. Seventeen of the States of America went in bald headed for prohibition, and also gave the experiment the fullest and fairest trial. With what result? Eleven of them in less than five years went back to regulated traffic, and two or three others have done the same thing since. In the. remaining States prohibition is practically a dead letter and a misnomer, because of sly grog selling, and the fact .that drink is allowed to be sold by all chemists and druggists under the euphonious term of 'medicine.' And it is really marvellous what an alarming amount of sickness followed the introduction of prohibition into these States. When the Chaffey Bros, founded their Mildura irrigation settlement in Victoria, they did so on a hard and fast cast iron prohibition basis; the sternest pains and penalties—even to expulsion—being visited upon those settlers detected introducing drink into the colony of Mildura. Again what resulted? Why such an amount of sly grog selling, with all the inevitable attendant evils, that the Chaffeys decided to leave the whole subject of prohibition or a regulated sale of drink to the good sense of the settlers themselves. These with their wives and children amounted to 3000 souls, when the ballot was made in 1893, and all the adults voted both male and female. The voting resulted in the decision by a majority of. two to one that drink should be sold on the estate under the Gothenberg system; and a Gothenberg house was immediately erected. Sly grog selling ceased, because better and cheaper liquors were procurable; and drunkenness virtually became a thing of the past. At the Mulgoa irrigation settlement near Penrith, in the adjacent colony of New South Wales, the founders also strictly prohibited the sale of intoxicants. What happened? Not only did the Mulgoans go to Penrith for their drink and return home demoralizingly intoxicated, but such awful orgies and pandemoniacal scenes were 'of almost nigrhtly occurrence through sly grog vending that the local newspapers cried out with one voice, 'Where are the police?' The police awoke, and got out of bed to such good purpose and with such alacrity' that eleven prosecutions and nine convictions followed in one week. These %vere sup* plemented by others, and as the settlers were di-iven to Penrith more frequently than before, the promoters of the settlement also gave them a licensed house for their own personal irrigation requirements. Lastly, the South Australian Government established an extensive village settlement on purely prohibition lines at a place called Renmark. After a three years trial the settlers by an overwhelming majority petitioned the Government to give them a licensed house, as being by far the lesser of two evils. Their request was reduced after a most careful inquiry and consideration, and drunkenness was reduced to a minimum, because of the stringent regulations imposed upon the manager of the house. I could adduce several other instances similar to the above, but these must suffice; and they show conclusively that prohibition will not and never does prohibit from drinking.

In conclusion I consider I have dlsi proved Mr Falk's assertions as to prohibition 'never having failed because of its inherent weakness,' and never having been repealed, except by a political party taking the place of the opposition who supported it. In every illustration I have submitted the people have been left to de.cide this matter for themselves; they have given prohibition a good fair trial, and have repealed the system. When Mr Palk in his ungenerous attack upon General Booth declared that 'the "first trial of prohibition, no matter how small the majority may be, would ensure its permanence and stability,' he was simpiy vapourising and ventilating his own biassed opinion. . Personally I think much good would result to the world at large if intoxicating drinks were swept clean out of existence—they have worked me mischief enough, heaven knows—but prohibition is a Utopian idea, and will remain so probably until the millennium.—l am, etc., GEORGE E. BENTLEY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln defending General Booth's injudicious assertion 'that ne would not Hke to see prohibition carried unless with a substantial majority,' I think you make the following mistake, viz., you put sobriety and drunkenness, or morals and vice, on equal terms as though there was no inherent goodness or badness in either of them, which the question of numbers could never affec,];. When God wrote the Ten Commandments I take it they were far ahead of the popular opinion of that recently enslaved people. But he did not lower the standard on that account, nor did he advise waiting till three-fifths of that people were willing to be morally controlled. Said Lord Chesterfield in the House of Lords in 1743: 'Luxury, my Lords, is to be taxed; but vice prohibited, let the difficulty In the law bo what it will. Would you lay a tax upon a breach of the Ten Commandments? Would not such a tax be wicked and scandalous.' In 1562 the London 'Daily Telegraph' confessed that 'our revenue may derive some unholy benefit from the sale of liquor, but the entire trade is nevertheless a covenant with sin and death.' Tax luxuries and not vice is sound moral as well as political doctrine. I should have expected General Booth to have advocated a ninetenths majority on thepart of the liquor traffic, if we arc to have large majority verdicts at all on political questions, and not on the sober law abiding part of the community, who disinterestedly and patriotically are endeavouring to ameliorate the evil conditions the liquor traffic has imposed on the natives. When I read the statement in the first instance I knew the General had blundered. Now as to Britishers being led and not driven. Surely simple majority ruling is leading and not driving. If majorities may not coerce minorities, what claim can minorities have to coerce majorities. Whether a prohibitory law is enforced or not will depend on whether the administration of the law is placed in the hands of its friends or its enemies. Thaot part of the battle will be fought in the future. One thing is certain, if the prohibitionists had a nine-tenths majority the one-tenth liquor minority would resist' the over-' whelmning majority quite as much as it

would a simple majority. The law will ha\-3 to be even then enforced on the liquor minority by legal suasion and not moral. You next speak as though the personal liberty of the citizens were endangered, and their property likely to be confiscated. This is not so. Their liberty, to use the word in its best' sense, will be secured find their property protected instead. The State has had a sleeping interest in this traffic for six centuries, and in spito cf 600 Acts of Parliament has absolutely failed to control it satisfactorily. Now finding the former bargain has entailed immense . monetary losses, and prodigious physical and moral evils, it deserves to end tho contract. The earliest Acts of Parliament were distinctly restrictive measures, not revenue ones. The revenue as a factor in this question has only come in during the last 100 years as population increased. The traffic has always pretended it existed for the public convenience, if it proves itself to be instead a public nuisance why should it not be abated as all other nuisances are in the public interest, and by simple majority of those concerned. In the case of nuisances not nearly so injurious to the public health they are suppressed ruthlessly without a.vote at all, but then these nuisances have not so many friends in court as has the liquor traflic. The importance of the question above'referred to is my excuse for asking you to insert the above views in your widely circulated and much appreciated journal.—l am, etc., WILLIAM RICHARDSON.

(To the Editor;)

Sir,—l. In criticising my letter in your leader in last night's issue, you cite Canada and some of the States of America as proving that public opinion fluctuates on the Question of prohibition. As to Canada, there has been no repeal of prohibitory legislation by the will of the people. At present prohibition is in force in l(i out of the 18 counties of Nova Scotia; in the whole of- the Province of Prince Edward Island, excepting Charlottetown; in about^ three-fourths of New Brunswick; and in parts.of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. As a matter of fact, Ontario is the only part of Canada where there has been a revolt, not against prohibition, but against the Scott Act, which revolt was owing to the difficulty, about its enforcement that arose between the Executive of the Dominion and the Executive of the Province. As to Massachusetts, a prohibitory law was passed in 1869 by a party vote, and In 1875 it was also repealed by "a party vote. In neither case did the people directiy vote on the question. In ISB9 a vote was so taken, but not on a question of repeal, as prohibition did not then exist. Further, in some parts of the State prohibition is in force through the operation of local option. You are totally in error in your reference to Massachusetts, likewise to Pennsylvania, where the circumstances are very similar. . , . .2. You say: 'General Booth exhibits a knowledge of the British characteristics which Mr Palk and his brother coercionists sadly lack. You may lead a Britisher when you cannot drive him.'Surely there is some mental confusion here. You call us 'fanatical' and ,'coercionists' because, as prohibitionists, we seek to carry-no license' by a t)are majority, and yet by inference you approve of the same thing being done by a large''majority. May I ask if, as you assume, it is.coercion to stop the sale of alcoholic liquor by;a small majority, is it not equally arbitrary to do it by a large one? The extent of the majority that authorises a ■ course of action does not establish'its Justice. The ; nature of an .act., remains,, the .same whether done by a large or small majority. The position is this: If the prohibition of the liquor traffic be a good thing, it is equally so whether carried by. a small or a large majority; and, conversely, if it be, as you say, an unjust deprivation of the rights of a certain class to carry No License, then it should not be done by any majority, however large. Do you not see that. your1 logic is sorely at fault? Self-impaled, you are on the horns of a dilemma. You must either give up the contention that prohibition involves coercion, or else, maintaining that it does, you must disagree with General Booth's position that even an 'overwhelming' majority has the right thus to' coerce. You cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. 3. You refer to 'the attempt to thrust moral maxims down the unwilling throats of British subjects by the force of Government edicts.' Now, surely, sir, you must know that, as prohibitionists, we do not wish to settle the liquor question by any 'Government edict,' but by the vote, of the people as expressed at the ballotbox. How many more times must we be under the necessity of stating this 4iact? 4. You accuse prohibitionists of trying to interfere with 'personal liberty and private property.' As to' the liberty of the subject, you must know that all law, both human and divine, necessarily infringes upon man's freedom of action andspeech. As to property, we do not seek to interfere with it in any way. We do not wish to shut up a single hotel, but merely desire to see these houses put to their legitimate use—viz., for the purpose of accommodation. , 5. You say that I don't understand the cardinal principles of constitutional government. In trying to enlighten me, you speak of the 'checks of the second chamber and appeals to the electorate.' Precisely so. May I ask upon what prin- ■ ciple thesa 'appeals to the electorate* are made? Simply this: That.a bare majority decides the issue. In this appeal any candidate will be elected if he has a majority of one. Hence, you have been kind enough to prove my contention that an essential element of true democratic government is that the majority should - rule. If, as you say, an 'appeal to the electorates' be one of the 'checks' afforded by constitutional government, all. we, as prohibitionists, demand is that the same 'appeal to the electorates' be made concerning the liquor question, and that the principle governing the appeai be the same-i-viz., that a bare majority decide the issue. This is the 'check' we ask for—nothing more.—l am, etc., C. PALK. April 12, 1899. [Our correspondent asserted before that prohibition had never been repealed except by a political party taking the place of the opposition who supported it. He now admits that there has been a revolt against the Scott Act in Ontario because of the difficulty of enforcing it. Chambers's Encyclopaedia for 1890 says: 'While the Act has been largely put in force in Canada, it has been subsequently suspended in many districts. .. .Evasion has been one of the chief causes which have led to the abandonment of the prohibitory clauses of the Scott Act in districts where it had previously been put in force.' With regard to Massachusetts, Professor Bryce, in his standard woi-k, 'The American Commonwealth,' page 428, vol. 11., say: 'The State has twice totally prohibited the sale of liquor and has twice rescinded the prohibition.' The author also refers to Ihe enactment and repeal of prohibitory laws in Pennsylvania and California. We think these authorities will- be generally accepted. The abandonment of prohibition at Mildura and Renmark, in Australia, might

also have been quoted in disproof of Mr Palk's assertion. Par. 2 of Mr Palk's letter furnishes a curious example of confused thought. The remark he quotes cannot possibly bear the construction he places upon it, but means precisely the reverse. We believe in leading, not driving; in moral suasion, not coercion; in personal liberty and the right of private judgment; in a robust, manly temperance in all things, not in a morality enforced by fine and imprisonment. Our correspondent's quibbling in pars 3, 4, may be left to the judgment of the intelligent reader; and paragraph 5 simply confirms our opinion that he doea not understand the cardinal principles of constitutional government. The questions opened up are much too large to discuaa here; he should read some standard.works on the subject. We may, however, observe briefly that no political party in England could hold office for a day if its majority were reduced to one, or even to a dozen; and if it made the attempt it. could certainly not pass laws of any kind. Mr Gladstone's experience with the Home Rule Bill, and Lord Rosebery'a more recent resignation, although .he hold a good working majority on general questions, are cases in point. With regard to Mr J. E. Taylor's remarks about splitting the difference between bare majority and three-fifths, the present proportion was a compromise between the two-thirds so long contended for by the United Kingdom Alliance and the demands of the extreme prohibitionists; but experience shows that such compromises never satisfy those who are clamorous for the right to coerce their neighbours, and who, like our correspondent Mr Richardson,. are apparently impregnated with the idea that they are the inspired interpreters of the Divine mind,while all who differ'from them are poor benighted, sinful creatures. Against this spirit of intolerant arrogance there must be a growing revolt on the part of men and women who have been taught to believe that to be born a British subject was to be born free and to be protected in the reasonable exercise Of private • judgment. We have already given much more space than they were worth to Mr Palk's opinions with regard to General Booth's views about prohibition, and now close the correspondence. The General's broad-minded grasp of -the subject stands out in pleasant contrast to fhe attitude of his self-suffi-cient critics.—Ed. E.S.]