The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1896.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9325, 28 January 1896, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1896.

PROHIBITIONIST " GOOD TASTE." We think tho reverend editor of the Prohibitionist, whose letter we publish in another column, shows discretion in not defending his publication of a blasphemous parody of the Lord's Prayer as an election skit. We are sorry he has not seen his way to express his regret that the columns of his paper should ever have been defiled by such a production. His effrontery in attempting to lecture us on the matter of good taste—save the mark! —we can only regard as amazing,

There is one part of the now notorious issue of the paper which the editor of the Prohibitionist ventures to defend, and he does so in a truly remarkable fashion. We refer to the gibbeting of the unhappy couple whose portraits were published in the Prohibitionist, with the* label attached, " Some Victims of the Trade." Mr. Ism thinks it is a sufficient answer to the charge wo brought against him that this was an outrage upon good taste and right feeling to tell us that he has committed similar improprieties before. He then says:—" I challenge " you to quote one word in those or ." other instances in which we have " ever said a harsh or unkind thing "of the victims of the trade." Let us then examine a little in detail the circumstances of this particular case.

Accompanying tho portraits to which we have referred is a sensational article headed " Drink Did It: A •' Christchurch Christmas Tragedy. , ' It states that the husband was an English barrister and the wife was believed to be the daughter of an English clergyman. After remarking that " they " were said to be moving in what are " called the higher ranks of Society, " and everything about them mdi"- --" cated that they were accustomed to

" associate "with cultured people " — tho article then goes on to say that both were of drunken habits, and continues:—

" Their degradation was complete. Many efforts were made to save them, bat all were of no avail. We have htard of more unspeakably horrible things in connection with this woman, who, but for drink, might have graced any home and position, than we have heard of any other ?"

What are we to say of such remarks as these about a poor woman who was lying in her grave ? Is it the editor's notion of kindness to write of any woman in this way, and to publish the remarks side by side with her portrait and that of her husband, so that there might be no mistake as to the person indicated? The reverend gentleman himself evidently felt that some excuse was needed for publishing the portraits, and this i 3 the apology he put forward:—

"Wβ publish portraits of these victims of the trade, believing that there are no relatives or friends in New Zealand to be pained by our so doing, and that it will help to drive borne the conviction that lives of no mean value are being sacrificed daily to those who profit financially by the destruction of their fellowa."

How did he make sure, we wonder, that these poor wretches had no relatives or friends in New Zealand to be pained by this scurrilous production ? Poor and outcast indeed must be the unfortunate who has not one friend in the country to be pained by the dead one's frailties being exposed, and his or her memory insulted. How about the friends in England, should a copy of the Prohibitionist reach them, which is not at all unlikely ? Have they no feelings to he respected? Is the clergyman whose daughter is thus held up to obloquy still alive, and does the Reverend Mr. Isitt hold that whether his brother oleric is pained or not by the publication of such details is a matter of no consequence ? Apart from all this, is it sufficient justification for an outrage of this kind thafi there are no friends of the deceased near at hand to feel the disgrace, or, we may add, to resent it ? Is fchis the prohibitionists' idea of Christian charity ? If so, we do most sincerely pity those poor "victims " who may happen to fall in their way and accept their assistance.

But this is not the only point about the article which seems to us to render it deserving of the censure and discountenance of all right-thinking persons. Even if people give way to drink, they surely ought to be treated ■with justice. Now there are allegations made in the Prohibitionist article about the dead man which ara absolutely contradicted by the statements made afc the inquest held upon his body. The Prohibitionist says :—" Ho " was seen drunk in a hotel on Satur- " day, December 21st, and on tho " Sabbath morning his body was " found on the sandhills near the " New Brighton Hotel and train- " way stables." Now, positive evidence was given at tho inquest that the deceased was sobor afc three o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and that ho was then served with a small glass of beor. Evidence was also given that he was subject to fits. Dr. Alexander Boyd, who made the post mortem examination, said the body was that of a strong well-nourished man, and he found nothing in the brain, lungs, heart, or abdominal organs to account for death. In answer to questions, he said that it was quite possible deceased had met his death either from sunstroke or a fit. The jury returned a verdict that deceased had boen found dead, and that there was not sufficient evidence to show the cause of death. To those who do not know the methods of the Prohibitionist, it will seem hardly credible that this was the foundation on which the reverend editor built up his sensational story of "Drink Did It;, a Christchurch Christmas Tragedy," and that this was all the justification he had in the shape of legal evidence for stigmatising the poor man as a "Drink victim," and publishing his portrait and tho secrets of trig life, in order to point the prohibition moral. If this is not a most discreditable application of the principle of " the end justifying the means," we do not know how to characterise it. And the reverend editor who thus acts presumes to lay down the law upon journalistic " good taste 1 "