CANADIAN CLERGYMEN CONDEMN PROHIBITION AND PRAISE STATE CONTROL.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19459, 5 November 1928, Page 12

CANADIAN CLERGYMEN CONDEMN PROHIBITION AND PRAISE STATE CONTROL.

Canada gave an extended trial to Prohibition, but has now abandoned « in favour of State Control. The first province to adopt State Control was Quebec, and the results were so satisfactory that province after province has followed the example, and to-day only the two small districts of -Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are under prohibitory laws. Seeking the reason for this remarkable demonstration of public feeling against Prohibition, the New Zealand Licensing Reform Association wrote to leading citizens of Canada, and the replies received from leaders of public thought m all walks of lif* indicate that Prohibition was found to be such a tragic mistake that it has been banished for ever from our sister British Dominion. Among the many replies condemning Prohibition, and praising State Control, are a number from leading Churchmen, of which the following are typical examples:—

Copy of Letter from the Most Beverend David Williams, Anglican Archbishop, Diocese of Huron, and Metropolitan of Ontario. The Archbishop's Eoom, Bishop Cronyn Hall, London, Canada, May 18th, 1928. The Dominion Secretary, New Zealand Licensing

Reform Association. Dear Mr Armstrong, Your letter of April 24th received, and in reply, let me say: (Government Control.)

1. The moral effect has been altogeth er good; It has removed the temp tations, to subterfuges for the evasion of law. The young people no longer consider it "smart" to havea whisky bottle at parties—a custom unknown before Prohibition days, but new happily passing away, since there is nothing "smart" in having what everybody can get if they

want it. 2. So far as we can judge, the general sobriety has improved. There have been fewer convictions for drunkenness. Though the number of motors, both local and tourist, has been nearly doubled in this province, the cases of drunken drivers have been

actually less than under Prohibi-

tion. 3. For many years public drunkenness has not been characteristic of the peoplo of this province. Public opinion regards it as a disgrace, and our Captains of Industry insist on sobriety in their workmen. The increase during Prohibition was probable due to poisonous liquors from

bootleggers. It is a rare thing now

to see a drunken man on our streets. 4. I have no means of knowing how the health of the community has been affected. 5. There is a revival of trade going on at the present time; but this was coming in any case, and probably is not due to the change from Prohibi-

tion. The people are contented and happy. 6. The moderate users are quite satisfied with State Control 7. The only people who desire a return of Prohibition are principally Methodists, with whom it is almost an article of faith. The great ma-

jority of the people want no return. I am, of course, greatly interested in your method of dealing with the Liquor Problem. We, in Ontario, have tried all three of the methods you mention, and I have no hesitation in saying that State ( Control is the best. The other two.are bad. Tho only question is, which of them is the worst. Private ownership tends to encourage drunkenness, which is bad. Prohibition tends to encourage bootlegging and the drug habit, and so to demoralise the young, to irritate the law-abiding, and to create a general disrespect for law, all of which are bad. I might add that every important province in Canada, except one, tried Prohibition, and within ten years, every one abandoned it in favour of Government Control. The one exception adopted Government Control instead of Prohibition. Now, Government Control is practically universal in this Dominion, and to the best of my knowledge, the people as a whole are satisfied with it.

Believe me, Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) DAVID HUEON. Copy of Letter from Ven. A. E. Burgett, M.A., Archdeacon of Edmonton North, Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. May 24th, 1928. Dear Sir, —In reply to your questions of April 24th, I beg to state as follows: —, 1. The substitution' of State Control for Prohibition in Alberta has been followed by excellent results. Under Prohibition there was lawlessness, and it led to much drinking of "bootleg" whisky and intemperance. Sinco State Control was established I hardly ever see a drunken man. State Control has

had a good moral effect. 2. Under Prohibition the young people Were taking to' drinking to an alarming extent, which led to other and worse vices. Public dances of all kinds were the scene of drinking by both sexes. It was due to the complete failure of Prohibition that the Province threw it out—the country and towns showing an I immense majority for State Control in every part of the Province. 3. Public drunkenness has decreased under State Control. 4. The health of the community has improved. under State Control. 5. Things are decidedly 'better under State Control. 6. Yes, the moderate users of alcohol are satisfied with quality of liquors and method of supply. Before, no one knew what he was getting and vile poison was the cause of many deaths and much sickness. 7. No. Just a few fanatics desire to return, but the country as a whole is strongly against Prohibition, and I neither see nor hear any signs of a wish to go bacfc to Prohibition. Private ownership was abused. Prohibition was a complete failure. State Control is a decided success. Tours, truly, (Sgd.) A. E. BUBGETT, (Archdeacon). As the people of New Zealand will have the opportunity of declaring for a middle course between the extremes of prohibition and continuance of existing conditions at the approaching poll, the foregoing testimony should influence those desirous of securing real temperance reform to cast their '-votes for the middle Ibsuo of State Purchase and Control. —Advt.