The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, MARCH 25. 1892.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 6413, 25 March 1892, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. FRIDAY, MARCH 25. 1892.

Tub following pleasant reading is dished up by the Wanganui Chronicle for the delectation of Mr Ballance's constituency, which, like the Pharisee of old, thanks God that it is not like other towns:—"Napier and Oamaru are condemned by their own newspapers as being the most drunken and dissolute towns in the colony. The drunkenness of Napier has become a by-word; and of the guilt of Oamaru we have adequate testimony." We did not know before that Napier had been condemned by its own newspapers for its drunkenness and dissoluteness. Some rabid, and not very reliable teetotaller, thinking, probably, that it was in the interests of temperance to prove by certain figures that excessive drinking was the rule in Napier, published a letter, and was promptly contradicted. Last Christmas there was a large influx of people from the country, whose method of keeping up the festivities of the seaßon is to get drunk. The convictions of that fortnight raised the average, but did not reflect on the character of the town. Unfortunately, during that period, there was an unusual increase of serious crime that was said to be due to excessive indulgence in alcohol; and no doubt it was. But the criminals were not townspeople ; they had laid the foundation of their delirium in the country. In spite of the number of convictions last year, we do not believe there was more drunkenness in Napier than in any other town of its size in New Zealand. We believe Mr F. Sutton, J.P., hit the right nail on the head when he said from the Bench that his impression was that men were arrested when they were perfectly well able to take care of themselves. At one time there was a sort of reign of terror established, and any country laborer was promptly run in, charged with drunkenness, and convicted, till at length working men from the country avoided this, at that time, police-ridden town. Again, every centre of population has its habitual drunkards, and these men present themselves on the charge-sheet time after time in the course of a year. If a man has been oonvicted twelve times in twelve months, and, say, the population to which ho belongs is one hundred, is it to be said that twelve per cent of that population was convioted of drunkenness ? Are ninety-nine sober and industrious persons to be maligned because of one inebriate in their midst? But thefe kinds of figures, " compiled from statistics," are what teetotallers gladly make use of, and " lie by the hour" by the deductions they draw from them. As showing the absolute valueless nature of drink returns, we read that not so long ago the fama wont that while Scotland was the moat drunken country in Europe, Glasgow was the most drunken city in Scotland. 1 he libel has not been withdrawn, but it is not so often repoated, though one of the pulpit-platforms of the city is occasionally made to ring with language about the drinking habits of Glasgow that is positively indecent and false. As compared with Glasgow, Edinburgh, according l to oartain orators, had never much to boast of in matters of drink. But Edinburgh is not yet perfect. How could it be, in the absence of two of its supreme pulpiteers, who were wont to show it the way it should go? There is still, however, some hope for Edinburgh. At all events, the Drink Reform League, of London, have got their benevolent eye upon the City Parochial Board. One of the objects of this League is to secure " tho uniformly economical use of intoxicants in pauper institutions." In a ciroular which they have issued tbey call the attention of the Edinburgh Board to the fact that, according to the latest Government return on the subject, " the cost of alcoholic stimulants for tho 463 inmates of the Edinburgh Workhouse exceeded that of 8952 inmates of 45 other British workhouses." They further point out, from the same official return, that " there were 142 workhouses at which the rate of expenditure per head of the inmates upon intoxicants was lower than your workhouse." These facts are distressing the London Drink Reform League, who want the Edinburgh Parochial Board either to reduce or abolish the consumption of intoxicating liquors altogether. Considering that the inmates of poorhousos are not only poor, but often feeble and unhealthy, requiring stimulating medicines, of which alcohol is one of the most effective, the request of the League in question may be regarded as a little cheeky, especially in the light of the fact mentioned by Councillor Crichton at the meeting of the Board, that they only used stimulants under the direction of a medical doctor. Mr James Mackenzie, an abstainer, presented tho matter in the proper light. With tho olass of patients in the house, it was necessary, he said, to have stimulants, which were used " very judiciously." Mr Mackenzie added that they were "quite competent to look after these matters themselves without being directed by outsiders." It is to be hoped that the London League will benefit by these very proper and emphatic words, and attend to business nearer home. They should remember that Scotland has a different climate to England, and that medical soience has reached in the north as high a pitch of excellence as in tho south.