REV. DR. ELMSLIE AND PROHIBITION.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8737, 8 March 1894, Page 3

REV. DR. ELMSLIE AND PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —Aa Dr. Elmslie is a leading representative of a large church he will not feel surprised that the viewa he has publiclyexpressed Uβ to —(Ist) The impracticability of prohibition, (2nd) the mischief that would probably result from it, and (3rd) the incompatibility of the principle with, the teaching of the New Testament—are regarded as a serious blow to a cause which niauy thousands hold to be essentially Christian and full of hope for humanity. As his opinion will carry some weight owing to his official position, we think we are justified in asking him to indicate the nature of the evidence that has convinced him that the prohibition of the liquor traffic has proved to be either impracticable or mischievous. Our reading on this subject—necessarily much more extensive than that of those whose effort* are chiefly devoted to other Objects—has convinced U3 that in quantity and quality the evideuce in favour of. the success of the movement outweighs by fiftyfold that which can be produced against it. We point to the fact that all the evidence which " the trade " has been able to circulate in New Zealand during the past two years to discredit prohibition has been that of Professor Goldwin Smith, who has since expressed himself in favour ot the suppression of the liquor trade ; Mr Gibert Stringer, who as paid agent of the licensed victuallers, located the whole State of Kansas some hundreds of miles on the wrong side of the Mississippi River; and hunted up, some very questionable witnesses to substantiate his own statements; Mr Yy. W. Collins, M.H.R., and the Rev. Chodowski, both theorists, and Mr Mortimer Davie, whose expenses were not paid by the liquor ring. On the other hand, statements most favourable to prohibition have been published from three Governors aud exGovernors of the State of Kansas, ninetyfour of its Probate Judges, its AttorneyGeneral, its State Treasuiers, several of its Senators, ite State Auditor, Superintendent of Public Institutions, Chief Justice and three Associate Justices, the Secretary of the Stace Board of Agriculture, the Superintendent of the Slate Insurance Department, leading bankers, merchants, &c. The official evidence from lowa, Vermont and Maine respectively is as weighty. The Kansas Brewers' Journal has certainly no interest in magnifying the results of prohibition in Kansas, and it states in its July number —[The statement not given in MS] To this evidence has beeu added the earnest recommendation of churches with experience of whole-or partial prohibition to guide them, including the Presbyterian General Assemblies of the Canadian provinces, of Kansas — whicb. declared ««\Ve, as a Church, stand squarely and unequivocally in favour' of prohibition" —of Maine, of Ohio, &c. The whole is so conclusive as to make it a matter for surprise that any unprejudiced persons who really read what is to be said on the subject hesitate to decide in favour of prohibition. In view of the supreme importance of the question at the present juncture, it will,we think, be regarded as an essentially fair request that Dr." Elmslie' should publicly and at once produce his rebutting evidence that its value may be tested. We do not quite understand his contention that " prohibition is at variance with the great prin-' ciple involved in the self-control of the New Testament." Does the worthy doctor mean that coercive measures to snppress evils are at variance with New Testament teaching say, for example, that slave holding, gambling, public prostitution, or opium dens should not be so suppressed ? or does his contention only embrace the most I iruitful source of physical and moral evils, viz., the liquor' trade?—We are, &c, -Frank M. Isitt, President Christchurch Prohibition League. George T. Smith, f Secretary Christchurcb Prohibition League. Thus. E. Taylor, Secretary Sydenham Prohibition League.