THE PROHIBITIONISTS AND THEIR LEADERS.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9022, 7 February 1895, Page 4

THE PROHIBITIONISTS AND THEIR LEADERS.

The letter from the Eev. L. M. Ism, which we print in another column, is a strange production- to corns from a minister of the Gospels Whether the writer will have the grace to feel ashamed of it when he sees it in print we do not know, but we are sure it. will cause many of his friends sorrow and humiliation on his account/ . We do not intend to follow the reverend gentleman into the slough of vulgar tn quogucs and coarse insinuations into which he has now fallen. Long practice as editor of the Prohibitionist has made him an adept at this sort of thing, and we should certainly soon be worsted in such a contest, even if we did not consider it degrading to bandy scurrilities of this type. Our correspondent, although desperately eager to get some charge to fling against the Peess, is still unable to find even a semblance of an excuse for impugning the conduct of this journal. After vainly trying to h6ld us responsible for what appears in Trutlt., he now rings the changes on the Weekly Press, which is, also under entirely separate editorial control, and in this case does not scruple to resort tohis imagination for his facts. What is still more contemptible is his attempt to fix on some alleged employee of the Peess Company one libel for which the Prohibitionist had

to apologise. We need hardly say that we have not the least idea to whom he refers in this chivalrous fashion. We asked Messrs Caygu-i. and W-ddowsox the name of the employee in question, merely as a matter of curiosity to see what reply they would give us. They refused to furnish us with the name, but were good enough to say that if we would mention whom we "suspected," they would tell us if the suspicion was correct. There are about 200 persons in the employ of the Press Company, and we are happy to say that we have no suspicions of any kind concerning any of them. Of course, the whole subject was entirely beside the question, and we did not attempt to pursue it further. It is interesting, however, as showing prohibitionist ideas of what is straightforward and honourable conduct as between man and man.

We do not expect to teach the Reverend L. M. Isitt either logic or journalistic propriety, and we are notsurprised that he still fails to see why the attack on Mr. Chrystaix was unworthy of any respectable journal, to say nothing, of one conducted by two Christian ministers. The public, however, have made up their minds upon the suhject long ago. The prohibitionist policy of "abusing and vilifying those who differ from them is the old spirit of persecution revived in. _a new form. In old times they would have racked their victims or burned them at the stake. Now they say, "Here is a respectable man who dares to differ from us on a purely abstract question —who will .not go to the extreme length of our fanatical teachings. We cannot now put him to .physical torture —the law is too strong for us. But we may dragoon and harass him into submission in another way. We have a newspaper, and a couple of clerical editors who are not very particular what they say or do. Let. us hold him up to contempt jn its columns; let us east discredit on his church and his belongings; let us apply to him tho utmost mental torture that the law will allow." This is the policy of the prohibitionist party, and it shows only too plainly how tolerant and merciful they would be if they once got a complete ascendancy in New Zealand. Against this policy of persecution we have fought in the past and shall continue to fight. Mr. Isitt has the effrontery to say that we "vigorously champion drinking habits." This is so baseless a charge that we can oniy charitably suppose that the reverend gentleman was led away by the tone of vulgar swagger which pervades his letter, and did not realise what he was saying. We are quite content to leave it to the public to say whether we in a quiet way have not done- more in the cause of true temperance than the Reverend Mr. Isitt, with all his violence and bluster. We are also ready to leave it to the same tribunal to judge whether the standard of journalistic proyi-iety set up by the Prohibitionik~ is the one which ought to be generally followed.