PROHIBITION IN NEW. ZEALAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 52, 2 March 1901, Page 3 (Supplement)

PROHIBITION IN NEW. ZEALAND.

MR ARTHUR SHERW.ELL AND .HE REV. F. W. ISITT.

Mr Arthur Sherwell (writes our London correspondent) has asked the favour of publication in your columns of the following reply to an article which recently appeared In the New Zealand "Prohibitionist." As Mr Sherwell has in many, ways given the colony much free and favourable advertisement since his return to the Old Country I gladly do my share towards obtaining the publicity he desires for his views on tho temperance question as embodied in his answer to the editor of the "Prohibitionist," which runs as follows:— January 7th, 1901.

(To the Editor of the "Prohibitionist.") Sir,—l hate newspaper controversy and have learned philosophically to accept most of the mis-statements concerning my views on temperance reform that appear from time to time in certain temperance journals. But if may relieve your mind (and illustrate once more the unwisdom of speech going before knowledge) if I say at once (1) that I am in no way responsible for the title of my article in the Australian "Review of Reviews" referred to in your issue of November 24th; (21 that I did not choose it; and (3) that I saw it for the first time when the article reached England. My own choice of a title was a thing so innocent and colourless that it could hardly have endangered my reputation for modesty, nor have called down upon my unhappy head a wholly gratuitous lecture. Seriously, is that sort of personal comment necessary? or is 'it likely to add to the dignity of your movement? For the rest, I have simply to say, first, that I accept no responsibility for your description of my attitude on tho most important point referred to when you and two other members of the N.Z. Alliance did me tho honour and the kindness to watt upon me after my arrival in Wellington. I should' have thought it impossible that any one who had ever discussed the matter witli me, or who had read anything that I have ever published or joined in publishing, could have concluded that "it is fair to,say that he was at least half favourable" to a colonial prohibition vote.' I have never disguised my belief that, while a broad measure of local option (including the option of public management as well as of veto) is wise and necessary, any attempt at national prohibition would, in the present stage of public opinion, be disastrous.

Secondly, I prefer that instead of giving' your own summary of my Sydney letter— a summary which hardly puts my answer completely or accurately—you should print the letter itself. Your readers would then see that, being asked to give answers to a series or questions (still in my possession) bearing on the position of temperance affairs in the colony, for (as I "Wan assured) public, use, I not unnaturally objected that it would be improper for me to interfere in the internal politics of a colony in which I was a passing visitor.

Lastly. I will only say that I did not visit N.Z. to claim "authority" to speak for anyone but myself. In the only speech that I made in the colony I distinctly disclaimed any such "authority" or pretension. (But your recollection of that speech, Mr Editor, as was made evident by the report of it furnished to a Wellington paper at the time, and which I felt bound then privately to repudiate, was always somewhat defective.) I came to New Zealand simply to learn a few facts and to have that pleasurable experience which every Englishman must have who is privileged to visit tho colony. Both objects I happily accomplished, and the übiquitous "interviewer" has found since my return that I have only good things to say of the prosperous colony and its generoushearted people.—l am, etc.,

(Signed) ARTHUR SHERWELL. Thackeray Hotel, London, W.C.