ANTI-TEETOTAL.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8478, 9 May 1893, Page 2

ANTI-TEETOTAL.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE PBESS. Sib,—The rights which mankind enjoy have formed the subject of philosophical analysis and disquisition from very ancient daya until now in this enlightened nineteenth century the whole, body of the great thinkers of the age are found in perfect agreement upon the subject. Rights are varied in their nature and are easily divisable into classes. There are-for Instance social rights, rights of precedence derived from rank, rights acquired through association with public affairs, rights of courtesy and honour, rights of acknowledgment necessary to the maintence of respect. Then there are rights conferred by the decree of the monarch or the legislation of the State; constitutional and other rights to be found upon statute books. The rights of belligerents and all international rights illustrate definitions of what is held to be due by States in relation to each other undez certain circumstances. Lastly, there are natural rights with which it is held' God has endowed man in the first instance, rights which creation's dawn beheld, and which subsist until this hour. As has been said, philosophers, logicians, jurists, thinkers, the most eminent- in every land from the earliest of civilised days down to this present, have been, and are, in agreement as to what constitute the natural rights of the individual, which in any proper classification would come first as being of highest importance. Under hie natural rights :— "Jason" claims the right to render gratitude, thankfulness, worship to his Creator ie manner most acceptable to his conscience without let or hindrance from any man or body of men. It is a natural right that is his, as it is every man's, and he would assert; it if millions stood up in denial.

"Jason" claims the right to defend him' self when assailed, to protect his home, to seek the acquirement of knowledge, and to endeavour to grow in wisdom and virtue. This right, like ail the others, was given to him by God "in the beginning," and has not yet been repealed.

The right to use the elements—the land, the' sea, air, fire, water—for purposes of subsistence are hie as they are every man's.

"Jason" claims the right to labour—a Heaven-given command as the right to rest, whfch necessarily follows upon labour, and the right to enjoyment so long as his enjoyments do not interfere in any way with the natural rights of others, and lastly— "Jason" claims the right to eat and drink what he pleases. This* also is a natural right—God-given from " the beginning " and. subsisting until this day—a right the exercise of which he is responsible for to God and to God alone. He denies the authority of King or Kaiser, Parliament or Council, any one man or any fifty millions of men to take from him, in the smallest degree, the rights divine with which he has been endowed by the Great Supreme Legislator; rights which were given to be exercised, and for the exercise of which he alone is responsible; rights in the scrupulous maintenance of which is embodied the continuance of the whole fabric of what is known as human freedom. Threaten to invade the sanctity of any one of these natural rights, and it is not a poor unit; like -<• Jason " that is assailed, but the very foundations of what is justly held the sacred temple of human liberty. Now, Sir, " Jason" lifts up his voice in protest against the impudent assertion of a right being vested in a something called a ■ majority to deprive him of any one ot the rights which have been conferred upon him by the Highest Power. It has not been given to any human beings, no matter how limitless their number, to decide for "Jason" what he shall eat and what he shall drink, or which of God's mercies shall be extended to him and which shall be denied. If a majority can take from him one natural right, then clearly it is within their power to take them aIL With his natural rights * ' Jason w has been saddled with responsibilities. If his responsibilities are taken with his rights, wherein shall he be justified? *

Now, Sirj although it is a very minor matter to what toa been written, let the question of the position of the majority in this matter be put fairly. If at a ballot the Prohibitionists are successful, then the whole community become enforced abstainers ; if, on the contrary, the supporters of individual freedom are victorious, then the Prohibitionists become enforced drinkers! Is that the position! Suppose that .the majority were to ordain that the Prohibitionists bow to their deeuion, and insist upon the the whole of them taking whiskey -would not the minority then hold the majority guilty of an attempt at the most monstrous' tyranny ?■ Would they not protest against

it? Would they not be found pleading ft natural right to please themwjves M to what they ß drank? Is it not dear, when the matter is thus brought .home to themselves, that the teetotallers not only seek to aim a mortal blow at the well-recognised principles of human freedom by depriving man of his natural rights, but that they are actually playing a game in whichtho liability to loss is all on ono side. Those who have abused themselves may deprive others of a right which they have never abused—a most inequitable arrangement under which the sinner crucifies the saint— bntther t*ke good care that they ran no risk of Wing any ot their right* Violated. This letter contains the firat position against the teetotallers. —Youra, «o.» May Bth, 1893.