THE CALL FOR REFORM.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 260, 3 November 1925, Page 11

THE CALL FOR REFORM.

(Extended Report by Arrangement.)

PROHIBITION A FAILURE. THE CASE FOR"STATE CONTROL A CLERGYMAN'S APPEAL. GIVE TEMPERANCE A CHANCE. In the course of a public meeting at the Scots Hall last night, the Rev. G. Gordon Bell, vicar of St. Sepulchre's Church, made an appeal on behalf of the attitude taken up by many clergymen and others who were supporting the 2s ew Zealand Licensing Keform Association, indicating that they were opposed to prohibition because it had consistently neglected opportunities for reform, and because on religious, scientific and humanitarian grounds they thought prohibition by legislation ■was "wrong. The speaker was continually interrupted throughout his address by a number of people "who were obviously prohibitionists, and who indulged in a series of interjections and in derisive applause throughout. Mr. H. R. Mackenzie, vice-president of the association, was in the chair, and in introducing Mr. Bell, said that after the election was over, if prohibition was not carried—and it would not be—it was the intention of .the association to approach Parliament and lay its programme before members, and ask them to adopt it as the true solution of the liquor problem. Mr. Bell said that before placing before the audience the platform of licensing reform for which the association stood, it was necessary, in view of the misrepresentations made in certain quarters, to clear up some of the doubts and misconceptions that surrounded the position, and show how it was possible for clergymen such as himself to be found ill opposition to the prohibition party, on the great question of the use and abuse of liquor. Not one of them who had taken up what in New Zealand had yet to prove itself to be a popular movement had done so without careful and prayerful thought. It ought not to be necessary to say so, but it seemed to be necessary, in view of the way in which their actions, and the policy for which they stood had been criticised and misrepresented. Prohibition Misrepresentation. Neither he nor any of the clergy and laity of his Church who were opposing prohibition could be accused of having no thought or feeling for the poor pepole whose' misuse of alcoholic liquor had brought so much trouble into the world, or of the dangers which surrounded the use of alcoholic liquor in these days. He yielded to no man in his abhorrence of drunkenness or excess. As a clergyman it was his bounden duty to teach and preach against excess, whether it was in the use of alcoholic liquor or in the use of any other of the gifts of God. Therefore the volumes of abuse which had been hurled at himself and his associates, both privately and publicly, were absolutely unjustified. They were accused of merely playing into the hands of the licensed trade of the Dominion. (Applause.) He thought lie would be able to satisfy the interrupters later. In the Wellington Town Hall that evening Mr. Isitt was speaking in opposition to his association's proposals, and in the advertisement which appeared outside the hall the leading words were "Liquors Latest Bluff." That was the attitude which had been adopted to the association's proposal by the prohibition party ever since their inception. Instead of facing the proposals honestly and fairly by argument, they had resorted to that initial misrepresentation—trying to make the public believe that the supporters of the movement were people who, either consciously or unconsciously, had been trapped into the position of aiding and abetting the licensed trade. But it had to be recognised that among those who # supported the movement were people like the Bishop of Dunedin—of whom Archdeacon Mac Murray, a convinced prohibitionist had said in Synod that there was not a more saintly man in the church of this province—Archdeacon Taylor, of Christchurch, and Archdeacon Williams, of Waiapu, Dean Fitchett and Dean Harper, to mention only some of the dignitaries and clergy who had given the movement their support. Was it reasonable to suppose that people of such standing would so jeopardise their reputations and jeopardise their church as to play into the hands of the licensed trade, or to take any action which could legitimately be described as action taken in the interests of that trade? A voice: Yes. Principle of Charity. Mr. Bell said that if there were people present who were prepared to level charges of that kind against clergymen of standing, he would say to them that they were not people worthy of respect. He had been taught throughout his life that the fundamental principle of Christianity was charity. In I. Corinthians, chap. 13, it was stated as one of the characteristics of charity that it '"thinketh no evil." This meant .that it gave credit to a man, whatever side he might take, for at least honesty of opinion and integrity of character. The prohibition party did itself harm when it hurled against clergymen such charges as he had mentioned. Again, the association was accused of having raised a "red herring" issue, On that point the association had found it necessary, throughout the Dominion, to approach the editors of the newspapers and safeguard themselves against a practice which was absolutely discreditable to those who had tried to apply it. The. prohibition party, through their advertining agency, had sought to put into some newspaper accounts of the association's proceedings a misrenrei Hcntation of its position, under the title "The Licensing Reform Association* Red Herring." The prohibtlon party by resorting to tactics of that kind had endeavoured to stop the association from getting a fair hearing. A voice: Quite right. Mr. Bell wiid ho had approached the editors of the dsiily paporw in Auckland, and repreeenteil to them the danger that such a thing might he attempted Imro, and hotli had almolut«ly repudiated »neh tactic* and ammred him that be need have no t f<:ar that their paporw would bo. Htihorned into Much a dlujjrAcnful plecfl of tactics. Hiatory of Prohibition. What, ankod the tpofilcer Uad been U><> effect of prohibition in New ZofcUnd? lor the last. .')<) yenrn the prohibition party had bff.n nocking to pnmiadd the pnoplft of thin country t.hnt. prohibition wan t.lin only remedy for th<i liquor ftvlln. (Applause.) That. flpplfiu*<\ h* thought, would be !io*t. toft until att+.r JfavemliM , 4. (Renewed npplaim*.) TTia v«»ry reason why Im and ofh*r« oeenpfmJ thefr position of 1.0-day wan thai- in *pit« o<

those 30 years' work prohibition had aot yet become the law of-the land. A Voice: That is because you have come into the field. Mr. Bell said the fact was that the present movement had been in operation for only three years. It was also suggested that if there were a straight-out two-issue referendum prohibition would win. (Applause.) It should be pointed out that in the last two polls prohibition had had to get only a bare majority on its side, and it had failed to do so. "The prohibition movement had monopolisedin this country all the temperance organisations that formerly existed. The forces which, but for prohibition, would have been making for licensing reform, and for better conditions in the government of the licensed trade in the last 30 years, and that would have helped toward the sobriety of the people, had all been dammed up. There had been no reform movement in this country in those 30 years, because prohibition had monopolised the field. And yet t>he prohibitionists turned round and said to the Dominion: ''Reform is useless; we have done all that we can for reform." A Voice: What about 6 o'clock closing? Mr. Bell replied that 6 o'clock closing was brought in as a war measure, and had been continued since the war. It was, however, practically the only reform the New Zealand Alliance could take any credit for. He asked his heearers to look at the matter from this point of view:— Throughout the world there had been, through the agency of the various bodies of the Christian Church, bodies working toward sobriety and temperance reform. In New Zealand the work of those bodies had been cut short by the activities of the prohibition party," and the fact that prohibition had won to its side most of those organisations. Natural Forces Held Up. The net effect of prohibition in New Zealand had been actually to hold up ' those natural forces, which, by this time, if they had been allowed free and fair play, would have improved the sobriety of this country out of all recognition. The prohibitionists were such kind and charitable people as to say that if clergymen came out against them, I those clergyman must be dominated by personal tastes or by financial interests. (Hear, hear.) It appeared that there were people in the hall uncharitable enough to endorse that sentiment. (Applause.) If that was the stuff of which prohibition people in New Zealand were made, he wondered how, in God's name, they could claim to be fighting God's battle. If. in a matter of this kind, one's personal tastes were to count for anything, then his own personal habits ' did not influence him one iota. He was, and had been throughout his life, to all intents and purposes, a total abstainer, and he was fighting this battle on principle. Further, neither he nor any member of his family in any part of the world held a single share in a brewery, or any such business. People in the South had had the audacity to put it to Bishop Richards, of Dunedin, that he was actuated in his stand for the association by financial interests. There were people ready to say that it was a shameful thing for any minister of religion to act in opposition to prohibition. (Applause.) To such people he would say that those clergymen who had come out for what they believed to be the true Christian platform of temperance reI form were in very good company, that of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. A Voice: Shame. Mr. Bell said people might say so if they liked, but the archbishops were men who stood high in the esteem of the whole world. And pretty well the whole of the bishops of the Church in England were opposed to prohibition and in favour of reform. Views of Archbishop. A voice: What about your own archbishop? Mr. Bell said that Archbishop Averill had clearly and distinctly stated that he was not a prohibitionist. The archbishop was one of thosa who had been waiting to see revived in the Dominion the reform movement in the way in which he liked it. A voice: Question. Mr. Bell said there was no question about it. If the archbishop had voted for prohibition, it was because there was then in New Zealand no other policy for which he felt able to vote. By the way, the prohibition party had j been making a great deal out of the archbishop of late. They had published a big photograph of him-in the paper, the " Vanguard," and had reproduced that portrait, with certain of his opinions, in a leaflet which had been widely circulated, and this without asking his permission. A voice: Permission was given. Mr. Bell: It was not given. I have the archbishop's word for that. The interjeotor: Well, I lenow better. Mr. Bell, continuing, said that if he were asked to justify his position he. could quote two people of absolutely the first- rank among temperance reformers —one who died recently, and another who was still carrying on the work. When he appeared before a Parliamentary committee two years ago to give evidence in regard to his movement, he was questioned for about an hour by Mr. Isitt. Mr. Isitt was very keen to know whether he had read and mastered the works of those two great authors ties, Mr. Joseph Rount.rec and Mr. Sherwell, and he was able to say that he had. There were no other two men in tho world who had given so much thought and study to this matter. Mr. Rountree, up to the time of hi* death I and Mr. Sherwell, still, were absolutely J opposed to prohibition as a remedy for the liquor evil. Biblical Authorities. " An a. minister of the Gospel," cefided the apimkor, " my cane is not a case which rests merely on authorities, for there in one standard to which f must conform in everything T do arid say, and that in no lnss than the will of Almighty Ood himself. ! may put to you what I consider to be the Bible nt.titudo —the. attitude of our Biased Lord, and t.ho attitude of the churohon with regard to t.hiw question. There i* only oni> thing that makoA mn hesitate to An ho, and that Iμ that there flpftin to ho in thrt audlenea nomn people so lacking in reverence thai. I hat* to talk of naorcd thing* in their proßoneo, "I appoal to you all, that although you may interject at other parts of 'what, f have to nay, at leant in the noxt few minute* you will have the decency I .ft tfivn nm ft quiot. and reverent hearing, F tiirn to the Bible, ami what do I find? (fnt(trrii|)t.lon«.) I find In both It* nurt.M, the Old Tentament and tlm N«w Tentamont, very utrlot denunciation* <>f dninlcAnneu. The prophet* in tho Old Tpntnniftnt and the a pontine of the Now, held out to Ihfl people to whom they prrrmhiwl very unvnrn warning* Mint t.hrtrn wen no nlacr* fc>r dnmkflrd* In thfl Kii>K'ldm of Okl. "f find Hint throughout <h« fJllile t.hcrrt Hfo ronat.nnt ftpjwwia for tlm iwrritn of ihe fnift principle i,t reform which w* an.ll htrnpcfdnw. But r alto find In Hie <>l<l T>*l«m«nt that, wtn* I* (•otmnfinrlerl lo he iim>«l rt« n drink' offering to the Almighty. A»ri I would

remind you that whenever such drinkofferings were made, or burnt-offerings were made, part of the sacrifice was consumed by the one who offered it. Time and again in the Bible you will find the injunction and the permission to the people to use wine. In fact, in one case in the Proverbs it goes so far as to give the injunction that wine should be given to a man who is ready to perish, as an act of mercy. Voluntary Abstention. " In the New Testament there is nothing which contradicts the teaching of the Old. There are the same warnings against drunkenness and the same exhortations pressed home even more strongly, to temperate living. The force of example is held up, and the possibility of doing good to a weaker brother by voluntary abstention is urged by St. Paul. -, A voice: Glad you admit that. Mr. Bell said there was no need to admit it—it was part and parcel of the whole of the teaching he had to give. There was no need for him to wait for a prohibition law to be passed before he gave that example of thoughtfulnesa for a brother. That certainly could not be said of those who were working energetically as officers of the prohibition party in Xew Zealand. "Now," said Mr. Bell, "I turn to that which is of greater importance than the words of the prophets or the words of apostles, and here, again, I ask you to give mc a reverential hearing. I turn to the life and example of our Blessed Lord, who came to the world to give mankind the supreme revelation of God. His words are the words of God—His acts are the acts of God. I am not a modernist. I believe absolutely in the Gospel, which takes Jesus absolutely as God. To mc Jesus is God. I look at His life and acts. To begin with, He was not, a3 was His fore-runner, an ascetic. John the Baptist came neither eating flesh nor drinking wine. Jesus so lived that his enemies were able to say of Him, blasphemously, 'Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber.' Wine for the Sacrament. "He began His ministry for the saving of human souls with an act that, as it were, typified all that he wanted to do for the bringing of greater joy, and gladness, and fulness, into human life. He attended a marriage in Cana of Galilee. There He created wine to add to human enjoyment. (Interruption, in consequence of which the speaker again appealed for a reverent hearing.) Then our Blessed Lord gave to us, as the means of closest touch with him throughout the ages, a sacrament, in which wine must be used, and although there are people who maintain that the wine of the Blessed Sacrament is not wine in the ordinarilyaccepted sense of the term, yet the Church throughout the ages has so interpreted her Lord's command, and has throughout the ages used wine, the alcoholic drink." Even under prohibition in America, the speaker pointed out, an exception was made in regard to sacramental wine. A Voice: Why make so much fuss about it? Mr. Bell said merely because it was part and parcel of what he was endeavouring to show, that when one turned to the Bible for guidance in this matter he found that it did not support the prohibition side of the question. Recently he took part in a debate on this very question, in the presence of one of the greatest prohibition workers in Xew Zealand, Mr. Robert Laidlaw. On the occasion he threw out a challenge—that if a case for prohibition could be proved from the Bible those present should undertake to do so, and Mr. Laidlaw did not attempt to give the proof. Further, although Mr. Laidlaw was speaking recently at Hamilton about the same time when he (Mr. Bell) was there, ,he dealt with different matter entirely—material prosperity and statistics, and gave not a word in answer to that challenge. The prohibition case could not be proved from Holy Writ. An Eleventh Commandment. His objection to prohibition went further. Prohibition made sin where no sin existed, and an Irish clergyman had once said to him in the course of a temperance week in which he took part, "God gave us ten commandments. I do not know about you, but I find these ten hard enough to keep without anybody inventing an eleventh for mc." Prohibition attempted to go beyond the law of God in making a sin out of what was no sin, and in making a criminal of a man who was not a criminal at all. In addition, our Lord was not the only religious leader of mankind. There came into the world some 000 years after He had finished Hie saving and gone back to Heaven, another leader, Mahomet, who had prohibited the use of all alcoholic liquors by his followers. The speaker asked his hearers whether they were ready to admit that Mahomet was a wiser or more far-see-ing man than was Jesus Christ himself, who was God, and laid down the principles of all human conduct. If they were prepared to say that there had come into the world since His time a prophet who had shown more wisdom on these matters, he would advise them to give up all pretence of being Christians and turn Mohammedans. The advocates of prohibition made a very great deal of the scientific side of things. They quoted scientific authorities for the purpose of showing that alcohol was a narcotic, irritant poison, and that as a refiult its consumption must be deleterious to the human frame. However, although alcohol was an irritant poison, it did not mean that it woa not of use to humanity. If he wore to become run down and go to a doctor, the chances were lie would prescribe for him a deadly drug, strychnine, and although it would lie put into a tonic for use, it was not deleterious, but advantageous if taken in proper quantities. On scientific grounds it was easy to prove that alcoholic consumption in beverage form did no harm to the body. If anyone cared to inquire, he could produce authorities to that effect. The National Hiatory. Further, all scientific findings had to l>o checked in tho light of human experience, and the apeaker declared that there vv«re no harder drinkers in days gone by than the English people. If they took thir trouble to look into history they would tlnd It wn* one of the characteristic* of the early Britons, the forefathers of tho English race, that they finished tlioir day's lighting with carousals. A Voir<>: It witx no honour to them. Mr. floll Mal<l it certainly was not, hut mirli occurrences won; common. The phniHo, "m drunk ns a lord," was not n. lαrm of reproach 100 yearn ngo. Heavy drill l< I tig hnhltn nnrl drunkenness were not. looknri upon In thorn days n« defects. If I ho EnjrlUli pcoplo, through their known hUl.oi'y a» a nation, and before l.hey weir* it nation, hnd lircn engaged in filling thomurlvan up with deadly narool.ii! Holland it. wrt« certainly taking a kmg (Irrifl to kill them ofl'. (Applause.) llr did mil. Attribute the greatness of tlm Mrltlnh ]i<-o|ilr |o their drinking habile but hr. did *«v th*t in spite of

j these habits they had made themselves into the greatest nation on earth. Prohibition was unfavourable to him because it was undemocratic. In America iat the present time the people who were j feeling the pinch were not the rich, who j could get everything they wanted, but 1 the hard-working poor, and he maintained that any nation which counten- | a need one law for the rich and another for the poor was only heaping up trouble for itself in time to come. More than that, in a democratic State or country a majority had no more right tyranically to exert its will over a minority than had an individual tyrant. In England some years ago one of the most prominent of i politicians went to the wall simply j because he forgot the truth of that. The man was Augustine Birrell, who said: "Minorities mu3t suffer; it is the badge of all their tribe." England had never forgotten that sentence, and never for- ; grave the speaker. Even in Xew Zealand, if a mapority were to be found in favour of prohibition, as it never would be (cries of "Yes"), it would not be justifiable for it to attempt to exert its force against the considerable minority. In fact, in every democratic country laws were obeyed, not by force, but by consent. The Effects of Force. This brought him to the final indictment of prohibition. He had searched in vain for anything worth while underlying prohibition. He could find one, and only one thing of any description, and that was the principle of coercion. Prohibitionists said thej' would force those who wanted their liquor to go without it, without regard to the question whether it wa3 good for them or not. History was filled with examples of the results which came by the use of force to attain moral ends. The growing fear in Spain in the middle ages over the spread of heresies afforded one example. Church people tried everything they could to stamp them out. They imagined they had failed, and so turned to the arm of the civil law to help them in their cause. As a result there arose the indescribable horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. In modern countries recently numbers of Godly people interested themselves in drunkenness, and they had been trying by means of moral suasion to get people to renounce their drunken ways. He believed they had succeeded to a great extent. The trouble was that numbers thought they had failed and were I trv ' n g to invoke secular aid and to secure I the power of the State to do what they I were unable to do by prayer, example or suasion. There was only one result possible. Whenever force was u«ed toward the attainment of moral ends disaster was 'bound to follow. There was an old English maxim which said, "Hard cases make bad laws," and the only excuse for prohibition and its advocacy was the existence in the world of a number of hard cases. In 1857 in England it was pleaded there were a number of hard cases, cases in which men and women unhappily matched could not be divorced from one another. It was said divorce was necessary if the sanctity of family life was to be maintained. As a result the fim divorce law was passed in England. The example was followed and extended in America, as well a s ; n other countries, >.ew Zealand included, and he ventured to ask whether there was more purity in ■ married life or greater happiness because or these laws. Everyone knew that the disquiet to-day was— A Voice: Beer. The disquiet was the result of the moral evil of the people who could not maintain personal purity. ("Oh." "Go ion.") Unless legislation based on ;real expediency was adopted, trouble was bound to ensue. Prohibition was not only indefensible, but also impossible (Cries of "Rot," and "Xo.") It was impossible because no minority could (dictate to a majority what they should eat and drink. If it ivere contended, and he did not mean to bother them with figures, that prohibition in America had been able to prohibit the use of alcohol, then he asked why it was ] necessary in March, 102.5, to appoint a I high military official in General Andrews, to begin to 'build up a system for the enforcement of the law from I the bottom to the top. Any country j boasting even a fair measure of success I would have no need of a law like that. lln addition there was that in human I nature (he did not altogether defend it i but could not neglect it), which 'prompted a man to pay: "Persuade mc iif you can, but to defy you I will do it." In a recent sermon, Henry Ward Beecher said that if his physician I went to him and advised him not to I take alcohol on account of his health, ! and if his clergyman approached him I with a request that he abstain as an j example, he would consider their overj tures, but if he were forbidden by ■ another man to touch alcohol, he would : take it as a proof of his own convictions. The Only Solution. Mr. Bell said he did not want merely :to put forward the defensive side of his . platform. There was only one solution lof the liquor problem, he said, and Xew I Zealand could only hofe to become j sober by the grace of God Were there i any who would contradict this. j A voice: The law of the land. It was submitted, even by leading prohibitionists, continued the speaker, that the power of religion was the only way out. Even President Coolidge had apj pealed to Americans and declared that I ultimately thfe enforcement of prohibij tion could be brought about only by religious sanctions. He had never, in reading prohibition speeches, given in J Xew Zealand or elsewhere, read such an appeal by a speaker. Their w4iole argument centred round what they called the liquor traffic. The evil which existed was not in the liquor traffic, but in the heart of man. ("Oh."') Their organisation was comparatively" .email in number, but they had nevertheless accomplished quite a lot. Before the last referendum the late Mr. Masaey [ told the Moderate League he would ! radically reform the licensing laws of . the Dominion. After Mr. Massey'a J death Mr. Coates announced when apj proached that he would stand by the promises made by Mr. Massey. "They had a definite promise, not the continu- | nnce or prohibition parties, that definite j proposals would be laid before the House I next session if the present Prime Minister were returned to office. The measure would not be a party ' one, and would give supporters of pro- ' hibition in the House an opportunity to I aid in the framing of really beneficial I legislation, which was more than they j had done in their 30 years' crying out ,to have the liquor traffic abolished. As prohibition would almost certainly fail at the forthcoming poll every vote cast for it would be wasted (cries of "Xo." and "Xever".) Every vote cast for Stat? Purchase and Control would give the Government an indication that there ( was a desire for reform.

A Slip Corrected. Votes cast for State reform -svould give the Prime Minister strength to carry out his promises. "Therefore," said Mr. Bell, "see that prohibition will not fail." This was received with long applause, lasting several minutes, while cheers and hoots were mingled in the noise. The speaker, when all wa3 quiet, corrected himself and exhorted his audience to see that prohibition failed. Continuing, he said the Bishop of Quebec, when prohibition was tried there and State control had been inaugurated, had said: "The whole law of Government , control is working well. I have seen less drunkenness in Quebec since it has been in operation than I have seen for 30 years. The law is not perfect, but it is 100 times better than so-called prohibition that kills no evils, and brings far more evils in its train." ' They had endeavoured to evolve a scheme which would not cost the country a great deal, and in shaping it along the lines of direct control, had taken the model of the Bank of New Zealand as a prototype of Government control combined wfth private business management. The scheme provided for the setting up in the Dominion of a central control board which would have in its hands the whole authority for the manufacture, and distribution of alcoholic liquors. It would not be a department of State, although the majority of its members would be nominated by the Government. Being merely a board set up by the State, it would be responsible to Parliament, and through it to the people of the country for the conduct of its business. If it did not carry out its business properly the blame could be laid at its doors. They would probably ask how the Government would obtain the monopoly. If corporate control came into existence every brewer, wholesaler and hotelkeeper would be pledged to sell out to the Government at a State valuation. The valuation would be along the lines of that provided in the Public Works Act for the compulsory acquirement of land. The private owners would not be allowed to accept cash for the purchase of their properties, but would have to take shares in the corporation, which shares would have a limited earning capacity. A voice: Is that Labour's land policy? Certain shares to show that the Government would have a pecuniary interest from the start, continued Mr. Bell, would be handed over to the State, to be paid for in dividends as and when earned. In addition the board apDointed would be responsible for the retail trade. This would enforce such a thorough control of liquor that it would tend to force sobriety. Reply to Questions. At the conclusion of the address Mr. Bell answered a number of questions. Asked why members of the clergy had only recently taken a stand, he said it was because" in the past they had been intimidated by the prohibition members of their congregations. Many were waiting for as lead, and he knew that in the Auckland Diocesan Synod they had 45 supporters in the clergy and 35 among the laity. Replying to another question he said New Zealanders did not realise what prohibition would mean if enforced. A friend of his in the United States had recently informed him that his house was searched at 2 a.m. and furniture was knocked about, while even mattresses were torn open. This was because there wa> a party at the house in the evening and the officials suspected there was liquor there. There had never been a referendum in the United States. The law was passed by the State Legislature and was passed on to Congress. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded the speaker.