THE PROHIBITIONISTS' CASE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11955, 6 August 1904, Page 4

THE PROHIBITIONISTS' CASE.

TO THE EDITOR 0? TH£ PRESS. Sir,—l am sorry the Rev. R. S. Gray should havo found in my letter an "assumption of /superiority." I have no intention of arrogating to myself any superiority, moral or dialectic, over Mr Gray, and I frankly apologi:e for any clumsiness of expression that may liave given rise to the sujge.«tion. A.? to my anonymity, so long as a discussion is purely impersonal, i* a matter btrtvwen principle, not between tlie iiiiivi'.'unls wiio maintain. I can see no impriiprk-iy in writing under a penluiini.'. Mr 'Jr.iy h ;tn ;u cr< :liuJ om'cinl of a p-iworii.l c,rj:;m'«!ticiii; iii:.< name adil , the weLiii <>t iiiiih"!:ty t'i hi> niv.umtnt. 5 I ,iTii r. i:i! re j::v;.tt> citizt.'i, iioi »i Hiciulif <if jiiiy p.'.riy *n -iTiiiiiiisatioii <,-oiir.«*itd wi!l. tlie liquor ci>iitruve'r>y, atid the umuiior ol my lunv inti» tin- discus-ii-n wou!<! neitlii-r :.Jd to nor iletmct from the fore of anything I may find to say.

My whole argument, says Mr Gray, is based on the denial of his premise, "th** State furnishes facilities for obtaining liquor." I aseerted thafc "the State reetricts facilities .... it doee not

furnish them." Mr Gray's reply to thi ■• is curious: tho State, lie says, has deter mined beforehand that it cannot allow in discriminate sale of liquor, therefore tin restrictions it puts on its sole beconw "facilities." Tho State has determined that it will not ullow indiscriminate immi grotion of Chinese; it imposes a poll tax of £100. Tlie Government, in virtue o* this £100 poll tax, is, on Mr Gray's show ing, "furnishing facilities" for obtaining vegetables grown by Chine;* gardeners or having our ehirts washed by .Chino*laundrymen. If we could persuade tlv working classes of that we should turi' the Government out of office, bag and ba-j gage, in three months. For, the otx thiug tho New Zealand working-man cannot abide is a Government that "furnish* 1 facilities" for Chinese labour. Mr Gray'.' contention is in a nutshell; substitute "difficili*." eays he. for "facilis, ,, am what's the matter with it? His nrgmnen. is as sound as that of the old philologen who derived 'iucus," a grove, from "noi lucende," because the sun doe* "not' thirr there: or, ne that of the theologians wh —but that wouW, perhaps, not be quiu courteous. Mr Gray gibes at my etatr , ment that "it ie entirely within the pro vinco of the Government to regulate thf cx.nduct of the homo .... to sup

press, for example, immorality. He, by implication, denies this. I used the won 1 "immorality," of course, in the restrieter

sense in which it lias become a sort o' technical term among eocuil reformers. M (Jruy, I should have thought, irould b< familiar with this common enough use r> tho word. However, the point is of nr importance. Hut what I intended for the crux of tin letter was the analogy with which it con

dudtd. I ask Mr Gray to point me a wa; out of the position my illustration put hi party in. What he does i* to criticise details in the analogy which are quito out side its force mid applicability. My "food etutf" is not, say« lie, "pernicious." lik drink. I do not admit that drink i- . "pernicious;" but no matter, it is th State, s;iys Mr (»roy, not "'a number o' individual*," who are to draw the cordon • the ".State" is an aggregate composed o individuals; but, again, no matter. "ii" gross unfairness of the illustration h> ap parent; food-tfuffa are nefessarics, drink r '. nut." That word •necessaries" i* a l:ttl ! ambiguous. If it means strictly '"thing i necessary to Mjpport existence," drink. < course, is not "necessary , ;" neither th<-n. i ; meat, nor vegetables, nor bread; milk wi! j support life. But if "neoeesarw" hsf • the usual popular meaning by which J : tonveys the opposite of -luxuries," the, , beer is a necessary to me; so are books, ' «j are comfortable" and -nrell-fitting clothes. But I can exist without atoy of these ! thing*. • Howerer, I will conform in every reepect ■ to th« objectkfl« raieed by Mr Gray. I will re-model tl» illustration so aa to avoii tliem. I will eubrtitttte vege-tanans for • t«K'totallerß, end iniagiae them in a threetiftlis majority. Let us assume that they legard meat as "pernicious," as "productive of vice, disease, and death." Th<? State, tlien, composed of a majority of vegetarian " individuals,'" draws a cordon round a citizen's house, and forbids the ■ importation into it of 6>h, fowl, or pood red lierrinp, or "nwatetuff" of any kind ! Bread and vegetables are : alone allowitl to tnter. The citizen comIjlaine. h« is hungry for m«it, he says th<7 \ are inn-rfiTinK with hie liberty: "Oh, dear no," «ay tlw vegetari.ins of the cordon 'far from it; an Englishman's house i* his castlt>; we would on on account ' invad<? the* sanctity of your home' and dktote to you what to eat and drink. Indulge vour c-arnivoruue desires by all means, > Knack your life over your cutlet ocd your

uriil."' Now is this not the precise position in which the prohibitionists p!ac<» thcmMlvw*? ilr <iray in his letter makes ihe attJtndo of his party perfectly clear cm the point. If the State revoke* liccn«.*, if it goi's furtlior and forbids "'th? nianufaetur*-. or of liquor into th<> lolotiy." it is acting, says Mr (tray, within its moral rights, and "prohibitionist." are not rtfpoi:sible for the disabilities which will admittedly follow.", I thank Mr Gray for that " admittedly." He does then acknowledge that if colonial option l< oarrit'd the people will be under disability in tlu> matter of obtaining drink for consumption in the sanctity of the home. What absurd iinnKTse i.« it them to talk of not interfering with the

"private act" of the individual in drinking in hin own hoin<\_jind yet advocating a ccurw- that will "admittedly"' make the exercise o{ the privilege itnpossiblo. The grant of a riaht must cany with it the means for its oxercise.—Yours, etc.. PHILALETHES.

TO THT. EDITOR OF THK J'BESS.

Sir.—Having undermined the logic in ''Philali'ilhw'" first letter by phcm-ing tint it was based on false premises. I thought it unnecessary to attack the illustrations that wore similarly bastd. but it upjjcars that " PliilaletheH" is sufficiently proud uf oii<» (if his illustrations to repent it. He Kirs I am '•evidently s>hy of tackling the analogy" ho put forward "of the people who drew a cordon round a man's housv. prevent tin? introduction of foodstuffs into it, and then toll the poo pie within that they are at liberty to eat and drink, and that the members of the cordrin have no wish to starve them." Having destroyed his premises I spared '• Philalethee " the humiliation of having the sophistry of this "illustration exposed. But ae he says the '■ analogy is rigorous," I propose, to submit it to an analysis. .

The position is briefly tlii , ;:—A, the community, decides not to 'supply or allow any of it« members to supply B, the drinker, with alcoholic beverages. It is surely no restriction of B's riphts if A refuses to sell, any more than if T. possessed of nn article that "P." wanted, refused to cell it to him, and tho position would not be altered even if "P." cannot get tho article elsewhere, and no one outside a lunatic asylum -would describe my action ne tho drawing of a cordon round '"P.V house.

Neit, "P." questions the principles nf jurisprudence that I snid had guided prohibition reformers in this and other countries. His own illustration, intended to demolish my arguments, but proves their unaasajlnbleness. I said that public acts were amenable to law, and private acts were outside tbo jurL«diction of law. He says that religioun worship is a public act not amenable to law. Had he had a "theological" training he would not) liavo fallen into the error; worship is essentially a private act between a man and his God ; it may b<\ and often is. performed in public, but it still remains a private act, and as such is not amenable to law. There are, of course, acte con-iWct-j-d with worship that are public in the er-nro that they relate to, or nffect th" public, then, of course, the State may interfere, but it, does nnt at all follow that because the State does not exerci;«e it« right, it. therefore, ha.i no Mich right. If a religious body performed their worship in the tsttwts in snHi a manner ns to erratn a. nuironw and infringe the rights of others, then the State, if it thought fit. would prnbnWy interfere. The Brit Mi Government promptlv interfere* with some of -tho religious rights in India, mich ns throwing perwonp into tli*> saored Ganges, and the burning of widows. ''PhilaletluV twitted Mr Gray with want of logic, but if any one with a knowledge of formal logic had read "P.'s" last letter they would have perceived that he had been ginilty of viofating one of the elementary principles of k>uic by wing what is technically called an ambiguous middle. By implication in one of his syllogisms ho k'.viitknVd "public" in the sense of "done in public," with "public" in the sense of "Hating to, or affecting the His rust illustration, intended to demolish my i.ontention that private acts are not amen &*']« to law it? even more unhappy than any of his previous ones. He says, "Knowingly having in your possession burglarious tools, for instance, is, provided you do not put them to use, a 'private net,' yet it is penalised in the criminal code." Had he turned up the criminal code, section 260. mib-fections 1 and 2, he would have read these words:—(l) Having in his possession by night, without lawful excuse (the proof of whirh shnll lie upon him), any instrument of houwbreaking ; or (2) having in his possession by day any such instrument with intent to commit a crime. Thie quotation clearly shows that the private possession for private use is not penalised. A man may u«r skeleton keys for his own doors, should he lose the proper ones, or keep burglarious instruments a» curios, without any fear of molestation by the law. A known criminal would no doubt have ?omo difficulty in proving that he kept burglarious instruments as curias.

Even at tho risk of occupyincr a great deal of your valuable space, I must refer to another* pioce of "P.V delightful reasoning and philosophy. He says in effect that the sa.'e of alcoholic liquors and in-<!f»c<"-nt pictures are not analagous, foecau 8 * the indecent pictures are absolutely, while tlie alcoholic liquors are only relatively, noxious. I do not want to enter into a discussion en' this point, I Mmplv aKsert that, sound philosophy denies that anything can be absolutely noxious. "But," savfi "P.," "alcoholic liquor is, I '.rus-t 'J.McC will admit, not 'per se' noxious." Of course I will admit it, benothing is 'per sc' noxious, but if "P." meaiw, a.i he seems to, tliat the :noderat<? vu*i of alcohol is not noxious, I tvply by quoting the greatest living luthoritv on brain surgery, Professor Sir V : ';tor Horsloy. H<> fare tliat even the quantity that us deemed Baits within the physiological limit, i« harmful and not and that on a consideration of ■]i-' whole subject lie has come to the conclusion that "total abstinence be our course if we follow the teaching of scientific investigation and the dictates of com-mon-«*pnse." Ijaatly, "P." chargfs tho prohibitionists M-ith hypocrisy, becausa they say tha.t a

man may drink vnat he likes and at the sumo time want to prevent him alcoholic liquor by prohibiting the sale.^ Frankly, prohibit ionb** do not want him to drink alcoholic beverage?, but they ohioct to using TUijustiliabU' means to prevent him. The end, I admit, i» the same, but wo object to the α-e of such as claim* 9 to obtain it, because it proposes an unjustifiable interference with the private liberty of the subject. None but a Jesuit would suggest that the end jurtitks the meana, and we are not going to accept such suggestions even from members _cf the moribund Liberty League. Talking about hypocriw, wliat about the hypocrisy of pome of tlie members of the Liberty League who are now strenuously advocating clause 9- —Yours, etc.,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS,

Sir.—" Philalethcs." in answer to •J. McC". repeats his cordon illustration. Why "J. McC." did not r<ply to it in hi* first* letter 1 do not know, bocauw. d.'.-pite spaciousness its absurdity is evidftit. Prohibitionists do not propose to draw a cordon round peoplo's houses to prevent them getting drink. What they propose to do is to diuw a oordon round the drink, or rather, the sal- of it. We have had Uμ much of the locking up of n man bocause lie Rets drunk, and we promise instead to lock up the drink. It is sheer nonsense to represent the prohibitionists a* inviting men to drink privately. They have always said, and do now, that drmk it harmful to the individual nnd to the SUte, and they intend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the individual to get ! tho drink. ' Prohibitionists object to "Clause 9, not because it will prevent people getting drink, but because the means proposed to be u.'-ed is nij outrage on tho people's private liberty. Pn>liibit,fonist-s are not Jesuitical enough to think that an end. however laudable, would justify questionable ineuns, and it is sheer humbug on 'T.V part to represent the prohibitionists as going back on their original position. They have not gone back one iota. They simply refuse to paiv. their ends by questionable and unlawfu\ mcans.-Youfs, rtc. p

TO THE EDITOR OT THE PHE33,

Sir,—lt is perhaps hardly necessary to interfere in a controversy between yourself and the Rev. Mr Gray, as you are probably more competent to keep your own end up ihan any outsider, but there are one or two points which suggest themselves to a friendly onlooker that I should like to note. " The undue verbiage of Mr Gray makee hie meaning a little obscure at times, and his logic is not always of the most lucid. This may be diplomacy, for the prohibitionists have admitted, both by their actions and their words of late, that they place tlie accomplishment, of their end above all consideration of the method of that accomplishment. Again, what are Mr Gray's qualifications for sitting in judgment upon this question at all? Has he been inside a hotel five tinwe within the last ten years. If not, what does know about* the conduct of licensed" premises of. his own knowledge, and why should he go to the extreme of saying that "the trade has itself demonstrated the futility of any control ehort of prohibition?"' Will lie deny that the conduct of licenced prcmiws Iras improved cot of all proportion during the last few yeara, wid is still improving. I admit that this is in a great- measure due to the efforts o f the prohibition party, but this only serves to flhow the benefits of regulation. If the traffic can bo purged to such an extent by a purely ulterior influence, what are not "its possibilities of wholesomeneM under State control wlwre the element of personal interest is eliminated. " Bore denial is not argument," writes Mr Gray, but thin particular pot is reproving the kettle with n. "cheery optimism" that does it "infinite credit." Xlr Gray is aa full of promises m a politician, and quite as chary of performances. Hie own letter is simply a series of contradictions of your contiTiwHction of hie contradictions. That about estimates its value. With regard to the famous Claugy 9, Mr Gray must know that there are already half-a----dozen statutory limitations of exactly the en me character, end of identical principle already embodied in our Ifljwg and never clallenffed. Clause 13 of Mr McNab's Bill was certainly the prototype of Clause 9, and if Mr Gray wants to see the dUcuemon upon It, Ji© will find it in " Hansard," vol. 88, My to August., 1895. pages 538 to 569. Why does not Mr McNab deny the effect, of his clause, instead of leaving it to the other leaders of the party to ko " furiously rage?" His silence is significant, more especially when he is reported in t!ie " Hansard " referred to a* sayinir, in moving the second reading of the Bill:—"First of all, with regard to pralubition, you will notice tliat in Clause 13 the real issue of prohibition is brought before the electors". There mno prohibition a* it is known at the present time; it is eimply that no publicans' licenses stall be> granted, but then Clause 13 means prohibition out and out." IF Mr Gray will read the discussion following he will find sneaker after speaker adopting the same view, even to the extent of saying in tiie ca«e of Mr Montgomerv:—"We are not only eaying that tou shall do away with licenses to public house*, but we ore saying that no person in a- district shall be allowed to drink at all." Rend it Mr Gray; it » definite enough to satisfv even vou. and at tho same time read Mr McNab's Bill, and if the Premier should introduce the** particular elntuses from Mr MoNab's Bill into his own Bill, will Mr Gray and his party support them? —Yours, etc., ANOMALY.