LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1333, 10 January 1912, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

SELF-OPINI,ONATED PROHIBITION ISM.

Sir,—A second "open letter" has been hurled, without apology, at ..Archdeacon Harper. Ordinarily letters intended for your columns axe addressed to you. This excellent.rule has the merit of rendering contribution-: lew personal and offensive to the persons at whom they may be written. Why, then, is the rule broken by these "open letters"? The writers of the "open letter'.' have received a merited rebuff, and seem to be smarting under it. They have only themselves to blame. Xo attack was i made, nor does it seem that any attack was intended to be made, ngaiust tinybody. It. Ls necessary at times to give in ii general statement tire impressions received. Prohibitionists do the same thing themselves. Have they not expreswd strong opinions of the manner in which public-houses are conducted and of the triido itself? They have no intention of publishing names and particulars and of making special individual charges, nor are letters thrown in their faces demanding that they should do so. What right have they, therefore, to make a rule for others. that they do not adopt for themselves? They aro. far too touchy, and forget that they have faults, as other men have. They seem to magnify the suppored virtues they think come to them trom Prohibition. They think they have discovered the great panacea for the ills of life, and that by Prohibition men will become as virtuous as themselves by a short cut. But do men not often become infatuated when they think they are virtuous above other men? A Prohibitionist lecturer once, asserted that Prohibition was the answer to the petition, "Thy kingdom come." Do they really believe that Prohibition is the beginning nnd end of religion? The plea that they believe their work to be of God is not enough to justify even tho means adopted for such a desirable end as the prevention of drunkenness. Men havo committed great evils thinking they were doing God service. I have just encountered three different specimens of Prohibitionists. The first voted Prohibition, but could not tell me why he had attacked my liberty by "seeking to prohibit me from obtaining a glass of ale if I desired to have ono.. He voted' merely as he was told. The second had voted' against Wardism for the first timo. 1 complimented him on the change, and remarked that Prohibitionism had also beconie so extravagant as to deserve a similar rejection. Ho scowled upon me and began to rant and shout so that I had to leavo him. Hβ thought I was worse than a heathen. A third to whom Prohibitionism was a fifth Gospel, and the.key to the four, told me her vicar had "gono down a lot" because he did not make-certain charges in answer to the request of the good Prohibitionists when he said, or was reported to have said, in a sermon what they did not like. I assured her this was absurd, and that tho congregation is not so foolish as she imagined; They will stand by their estceniei vicar, let who will throw in their puritanical or Prohibitionist apples of discord, , Things have come to such a .state that tho next Parliament should consider whether theso licensing contests should not be abolished. Every three years they create bitter feelings of increasing intensity. The-contests were introduced with tho object of removing the disturbing efi'cct upon the elections.of the licensing question. They hayo but mado it more pionounced than ever.—l am, etc., T PHtLAX. January 8, 1912.