CORRESPONDENCE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9361, 10 March 1896, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

PEOHIBITION OKDBES. TO TUB EDITOR OF THE PBBSS.

Sib,—Your report, under the above heading, of the Magistrate's remarks in Ihe S.M, Court on Saturday, affords mc an opportunity for explanation which the rules of the Court denied mc at the time.

The Prohibitionists are continually beinjj appealed to by persons desiring to obtain prohibition orders against their friends, but who, dreading the consequence.? , to themselvee, are afraid to take the initiative steps. During the last few months quite a number of women have laid their cases before us, but refuse to proceed further with the matter when they learn that; their own evidence is necessary, fearing ihat the miseries of their home nould be increased by their action. Other relatives frequently object to be mixed up with eaofa cases, and m some of the worst instances the police have absolutely declined to interfere, though they have admitted. that come action was necessary.

. In some of these cases, informations have been laid by the Prohibitionists, with the result that orders hare baen obtained without any objection from the Bench. How can the Prohibitionists refuse to help those whom bh*y believe to be. suffering, however cooacioua they may be that they will incur odium by doing so, and however little hope they may hare of the' order being effective unlese the relatives are prepared to persistently follow the case up. I don't think that it is interference for any representative of a League that exists to combat the liquor traffic to comply with the request of victims of tbat traffic to help them in their efforts to escape from some of its worst consequences. Nor can I see that a personal knowledge of the person against whom the, prohibition order ie sought, is any more, necessary than such knowledge is needful to the agent of ft \- Society for the Prevention of Cruelty'jto Aniinale before he lays an information when definite evidence is laid before him. In the case specially, xeferred to the information was laid at the earnest request of the wife, and .was withdrawn chiefly because her evidence was sustained only by- that of relatives who had no recent knowledge, while her own word was flatly contradicted by the person against whom the order was sought. An aged mother could not be called, and it would hare . been manifestly unwise to have called the children. It does not follow that the pie* was not in itself justified. Allow mc, Sir, in conclusion to express my appreciation of yonr action in this and other similar, cases of withholding from publication the,-namee of the persona oon* cerned.—l amy4be., - SSCBETABT ChRISTCHUBCH PjßO- ' HißxnoN Leaqtje.