Untitled

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 105, 2 May 1908, Page 7

(To the Edltor.j Sir,—Mr W. J. Maedermott, of Band of Hope fame, seems to be very annoyed that anyone should dare to cross swords with such a redoubtable prohibition- i champion as himself. lam but a simple- j minded New Zealander, who knows his j colony, has observed a little, and thinks . a little. It seems to annoy Mr Maedermott and Mr French and Mr Thomas Webb, all exceedingly well-known gentle-' . men in connection with the prohibition cause in Auckland, that I should dare • to take up a stand on the "No-license" questions, independently of their views. The prohibition advocate becomes unconsciously such a dictator on this question that 1 verily believe were he in power he would persecute those who dared to stand in the way of the exploitation of his theories, just as denominational persecution Avent on a Sew centuries ago. Mr Macdermott chooses to doubt the unbiased reports of the failure of "no-' license" in the United States. Does ! he doubt the opinions of men like Messrs' Rounlree and Sherwell, who, starting out on their travels as "prohibitionists," changed their views entirely after a. thorough investigation of the subject? Per- | haps Mr Maedermott and Mr French and Mr Thomas Webb will be able to explain why Portland, the capital of the State of Maine, has about 44 drunkards per thousand of population, after fifty \ years of "no-license," while New Zealand under "license" has about 10 or 11 per. thousand of population. If the contentions put for yard in such a. specious manner for many years past in Auckland by the prohibition advocates are correct, viz., that "no-license" eradicates the evil of intemperance, then how can they account for the enormous amount of drunkenness evidenced in the town of Portland after nearly half a century of "no-license." If these three gentlemen can explain this, they are capable of explaining anything. I simply long for their replies. The following opinion frankly expressed by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, j regarding the failure of prohibition in ' the United States, should be interesting j to everybody:—"l have been a great tra- j veller, and I have seen .prohibition at work in the United States of America, and I reply in regard to it, much more' upon the information I have obtained from impartial, intelligent pe/>p — than I do even on my own observation, and the evidence. I have received from such persons—thoroughly disinterested—is all to the same effect: that in towns, at any rate, anything in the nature of compulsory prohibition of drinking is absolutely impossible, and it only leads to drinking in worse forms than under the old system.—l am, etc., E. W. BARRY, Wynyard-street, Auckland.