“WHY PROHIBITION?”

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 29, 29 October 1928, Page 17

“WHY PROHIBITION?”

ADDRESS IN TOWN HALL LIQUOR TRADE ATTACKED “You may reform a liar, but you cannot reform a lie; you may reform a drunkard, but you cannot reform drink.” Such were the sentiments expressed by the Hon. W. F. Finlayson, former member of the Federal; Parliament and exmember of the Legislative Council of Queensland, during the course of an address “Why Prohibition?” which he delivered in the Town Hall yesterday. There was a good attendance in the big hall, including representatives of the Independent Order of Good Templars and -the Independent Order of Reehabites, all wearing the regalia of their lodges. The Salvation Army and the New Zealand Alliance were represented, and Commissioner James Hay (Salvation Army) was in the chair. Several hymns were sung to the accompaniment of the Salvation Army Band, after which a prayer was offered by the Rev. R. J. Howie, B.A. The speaker’of the afternoon was introduced by Commissioner Hay, who, referring to a statement that the Salvation Army had “wobbled” in America on the subject of prohibition, said that information had been sought on the subject, and it had been found that the Salvation Army was without question acting entirely on the side of prohibition. There were three good reasons for the introduction of prohibition, said Mr. Finlayson. The first one was “because of w-liat tlie liquor traffic is and what it does.’ Mr. Finlayson praised the grand old days <>t the “blue ribbon” campaign. He said that it was hard to take drink from the man, but it was harder to take the man from the drink. Te spoke of Commander Eva Booth’s denunciation of the liquor traffic, and read, amidst applause, the list of evils which she said attended tlie sale of liquor. „ . Referring to what he described as the lies circulated by the liquor traffic, Mt. Finlavson said he- could not believe thing’it said. He alleged that none of its statements told the truth, except by accident, for the liquor traffic existed on lies.The speaker said that if the liquor traffic was to be closed up in New Zealand then it should be done by the people. The prohibition party had always advertised its slogan unashamedly and cared not fot any party. He also denounced the allegation that the New Zealand Alliance was trying to corrupt Parliament, and said that the liquor party would not tell the truth about prohibition in America. While in that country, he said, he visited several gaols—empty ones. -ihey are selling the gaols over there, he said. A denial was given to the statement that prohibition was responsible for the crime wave in America. Drink and crime, added the speaker, were inseparably connected with each other. Reading from an American journal, he stated that prohibition had wrought almost unbelievable changes for the better. An instance was given by a comparison of New York s “Bowery” in days gone by and at the present time, when such enormous improvement in the mode of living had taken place. r Prohibition, continued Mr. Finlayson, was the only remedy for the evils of the liquor traffic. For the liquor traffic to pose as a judge of morals and of religious ethics was enough to rouse the indignation of everyone in the Dominion. (Applause.) Alcohol,- he said, was a deceiver and a mocker, for it .had always advertised itself as doing What it did not, and men and women found out too late what a deceiver it really was. Tho second reason, said Mr, Finlayson, for the introduction of prohibition was because everything else that had been tried had been a failure. The Parliaments of the world had, apparently, exhausted their resources in trying to find a way to make the liquor traffic less evil than it was. They had not eradicated the evils of the liquor traffic. The speaker mentioned those who advocated a sort of half-way measure, and alleged that once more those people were trying to bluff the public into believing that there was some half-way reform for eradicating the evils of the liquor trade. If there was to be a referendum, then there should be a straight-out “for' or against” vote by the people. . , . The third point stressed was that wherever prohibition had been tried it had been a success. The speaker pointed out that whenever people stopped drinking they started to rise and improve themselves. Drink was no respecter~of persons, and had dragged hundreds down in' the wdrld, but in every town where the “drink shops” had been closed there had been marked improvement in the home lives of manv people. Mr. Finlayson remarked that lie had recently spent a week in Invercargill, a town of 22,000 people, and had not set eyes on a single intoxicated or even a semi-intoxicated person, (Applause.) At Bluff, which is only a small place, he saw numerous drunkards. A vote of thanks to the speaker (proposed by Mr. G. Petherick) and to the chairman concluded the proceedings.