The Press Friday, August 15, 1924. A Forbidden Topic.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18152, 15 August 1924, Page 8

The Press Friday, August 15, 1924. A Forbidden Topic.

It is a wholesome rule which imposes upon the Governors of States and the Governors-General of Dominions the duty of restraint in referring to questions which are the subject of public controversy. Yet one can sympathise with the Governor of South Australia in the trouble ho ha? brought, upon himself by his reference to Prohibition in a speech delivered at a dinner ol the Licensed Victuallers' Association. He is reported to have said: "I think we "all distrust the camouflage and eor- '' ruption of Prohibition. It is foreign "to our nature, although it does give "us a laugh now and then.'' It was not to be expected that the Prohibitionists would ignore these remarks. The matter was mentioned in Parliament, and the Premier said the Government had intimated to the Governor the constitutional position of his Majesty's representative on controversial topies. What the Governor said was surely the opinion of most reasonable men. Prohibition has been productive of an appalling amount of chicanery and corruption in America, and, has produced a reaction which manifests itself in phenomena very repugnant to British feeling on social conduct. But this is an opinion which Governors must keep to themselves, however strongly they may hold itj since the expression of it, as everyone knows, gives offence to -a considerable section of the community. If Prohibition were in force in South Australia, there would be no doubt concerning the impropriety of the Governor's speech; but he was not referring to South Australia, but only to a condition of things existing in a foreign country, so that it is difficult to understand how he can be held to have deserved anything like censure at the hands of the Government. His I presence at the licensed victuallers' dinner was in itself a tacit admission or expression of his opinion, and if hi 3 presence was not a cause of offence, his speech need not have been. Nevertheless., since the question is one upon which public opinion is sharply divided, it must bo admitted that the Governor ought to have abstained from any comment cren upon the deplorable results of Prohibition in America. We do not suppose that the protest made against his Bpeech was due so mncn to anxiety that the Governor of the State should abstain from meddling with controversial issues- as to indignation that anybody in a high position should ! range himself amongst the critics of Prohibition. One of the most serious difficulties with which the Prohibitionists have to eontend is the fact that their harsh and dangerous doctrine ia opposed by vast numbers , of men whose virtue, character, and intelligence cannot be questioned. Governors, of course, can be constrained to silence, and tliey doubtless ought to be, but other people not less influential will go on saying and thinking what the South Australian Governor ought not to have said, but what is none the less perfectly true, namely, that Prohibition is foreign to the nature of people brought up in the tradition of liberty and law.