The Press Friday, May 12, 1922. The Liquor Question.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17452, 12 May 1922, Page 6

The Press Friday, May 12, 1922. The Liquor Question.

Tho aiscussion which took place at the Anglican General Synod on the liquor question last week was interesting and important. The question waß introduced in a resolution proposed by Archdeacon Chatterton, in which it was premised that it is the duty of the Church to combat the evils for which alcohol is regarded as responsible. The resolution went on to call upon members of the Church "(a) to exercise tho "sacred duty of voting at the next " referendum in such a way as to place " the moral interests of the community "before any personal interest or consideration; and (b) to recognise the "duty of combating the evil of in-' " temperance by personal example and " willing eelf-sacrifice." The Primate expressed dislike of this resolution (which was ultimately rejected) as being too colourless. "Of course it meant " Prohibition," he said, /'although it " did not say so." Others may dislike the resolution oif additional grounds—on the ground that it assumes too much concerning the duty of Christians, and on the further ground that it may imply that a great number of good people vote against Prohibition because tHey do,not like to give up their temperate and wholesome use of wine. The Primate 'proposed an amendment which cannot be described as colourless, as follows:; "That this Synod expresses its " strong conviction , that it . is the " bounden duty of Christian people, ''unless they prepared to vote for " total prohibitioti of the liqubr traffic, "to have' some other drastic remedy. " for an evil which is sapping the j;'.' morals -and efficiency of the eom','munity." ,T, lß'this an accurate, or even approximately accurate, account of the I effect of alcohol on this increasingly sober Dominion? Is it not a,fact that tbe evils attendant on the abuse of liquor by the inevitable small minority are far less than, they were? Surely the record the Dominion on every point answers that question in the affirmative. But we axe not concerned to Swell , upon that point just now, but rather to ppint out that the Private's proposition is on the whole a sound one. Many people -vote for Prohibition because they believe (very mistakenly,. in< our opinion) that it; will on the whole be beneficial to the State; others do so because, they believe that the existing conditions are • swept away some better method of ministering to the lawful needs of those who can use wine wisely and well may be devised. . Bishop Sprott, for example, votes fpr Prohibition, not,! he. explained, because he: regards-Prohibition as the final settlement of the question, but because he believes that no better system can.be brought in .until the present system has been swept, away. His Lordship can hardly have considered the power which the highly-organised Prohibition party, can exert, in the event of success, , against any attempt to allow any system whatever of selling v wine to bo built upon the cleared, field. If Prohibition were carried, the Prohibitionists would maintain their organisation to destroy every man who might seek to allow the public to drink alcoholic liquor again-in any circumstances whatever. "Whether the Synod should issue any pronouncement on the subject is a matter on which opinions differ. We may note Bishop Sprott's opinion: "The diity of the Synod was "to attend-to the good government of " the Church in her' internal affairs. "It might be said that they had " touched on the question of marriage ■"and divorce, - but'this was "because! "from the beginning the Church hpd I " had positive laws on the matter of' " marriage and divorce, and the question came' legitimately within the " powers of Synod/' ', * ;■ We have said that the proposition of the Primate, which was agreed to by th© Synod, is substantially sound. He i 3 a Prohibitionist, but the opponents of Prohibition can and should agree with him that it does not suffice to reject Prohibition and'' consider. one's duty done. It has never been the opinioii of "The Press" that that will suffioe,, and for many, years we have urged that some change in the conditions under which drink is retailed should be brought about. TKe great obstacle to true temperance reform has been the Prohibitionist movement, as was indeed urged before Synod by Archdeaoon Williams. Wanting nothing less than the'proscription 'of alcohol as a fluid intrinsically evil, and of the drinking of it as an act intrinsically sinful, the Prohibitionists have stpod firmly against every attempt t 0 encourage the idea that there may be a

I better system of retailing liquor than the present one. Small reforms they have indeed supported. They supported, for example, the closing of the bars in the evening, and they hare always favoured the punishment of the lax and greedy and lawless amongst sellers of liquor. They could afford to, because, no matter what improvement these reforms and this severity against lawbreakers might effect, they reserved to themselves the right to say that the drink evil is as great as ever. They will not co-operate in any measure of temperance reform which conflicts in any degree with the Prohibitionist idea. Now the Synod has indicated to those who are opposed to Prohibition that they should set about finding some other remedy for such evils as are attendant upon the sale of alcoholic liquor. During next session the Parliamentary committee which has been going into the question will present its report, and the Synod's resolution ought to bespeak for that report a fair hearing and thoughtful consideration and discussion outside Parliament as well as inside it. If the report is wisely framed it may form a rallying point for those who desire to assist true temperance reform.