The Prohibition Poll.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16732, 15 January 1920, Page 6

The Prohibition Poll.

It is quite liko old times to have the Ilcv. W. J. Williams sending us a lottcr full of terrible thwacks, and wo are glad to seo that the defeat of Prohibition has lessened noither his energy nor his readiness to ongngo in combat. Wo asked him to giro us his opinion upon the result of tho licensing poll, and very mildly—how mildly, and how completely without adorning the simplo facts, our readers will seo for themselves in our footnote to his letter—we pointed out two statements in his opinion from which dissent was permissible. For our dissont on ono point wo had tho authority of the plain figures; for our dissent on tho other point wo had tho authority of Sir Williams himself, in addition to the authority of tho obvious facts. If we understand tho first portion of his letter, Mr Williams would lav it down 'mat when we ask him for a statement wo must not dream of treating it otherwiso than as a revelation not to bo criticised or questioned. But Mr Williams does not really mean what ho says. Ho merely believes that it is his duty on all occasions to represent " Tho Press" as a publican and a His method is generally understood, and no more need he said about it.

As to the substanco of Mr Williams's defence of his reference to tho third issue, we should indeed liavo been unreasonable, and oven unfair, if wo had sought to charge Mr "Williams with inconsistency, or (what wo actually had in our mind) opportunism, on no better ground than that his opinion on January 12th was tho reverse of his opinion on December 9th. This unreasonableness and unfairness Mr Williams dots charge against us. Now the statements of Mr Williams which, without any comment, we set in contrast with each other, did not at all relate to a matter of opinion. They related to a Bingle, simple fact, which waa independent of dates. On Decembor 9th Mr Williams said, and quito truly, that tho introduction of tho third issue did not injuro tho Prohibition vote, but merely split | the anti-Prohibition vote. The Prohibitionists, as in effect he pointed out, had Prohibition to vote for, and wore not affected bv the offer of alternatives to tho anti-Prohibition voters. Surclv that is still true. If it is not tmo now, and was not true on llie fatal day —if, that is to say, tho division of tho anti-Prohibitionists into two camps nctuallv reduced tho number of Prohibitionists, we shall gladly give Mr Williams space to show how and why this occurred. What facts, in short, has ho to give us to explain and justify what ho calls his legitimate change of opinion? Jle gives us nono to-day. Concerning tho conditions nocessary to the adoption of tho Prohibition amendment to tho United States Constitution, wo cannot perceive how our reference to the matter can be regarded as unfair. It matters nothing that this or that number of State Legislatures approved the amendment by a bare majoritv, or any other majority.. Tho point to bo noted is that tho framers of tho Constitution, with a wisdom that is attested bv tho nnshaken maintcnanco of their enactment in this respect, laid it down that an amendment of the Constitution requires ratification by a three-fourths majority of tho States. Wo have expressed the opinion that the principlo here involved ought to govern the treatment of the Prohibition question in this countrv. Wo may bo wrong. Tlin ' framers of tho American Constitution, | and the succceding generations of American statesmen who liavo valued this provision of the Constitution may also bo wrong. And Mr Williams may bo right. But this is at least far from being a self-evident truth.