Reply to Mr. ("Pussyfoot") Johnson

Dunstan Times, Issue 3142, 6 November 1922, Page 9 (Supplement)

Reply to Mr. ("Pussyfoot") Johnson

The Rev. Wymlhatn Heathcote addressed a largo audience in the King’s Theatre last evening under the auspices of the Moderate League, his purpose being to advocate the claims of State control and also to make a reply to Mr (“Pussyfoot ) Johnson. . Air George Mondy. who occupied the chair, briefly introduced the speaker It had been proposed, he said, that the Mayor should take the chair that evening, but a previous engagement had kept him away, and the speaker, as president of the Moderate League, had been asked to take his place. It was with the greatest pleasure that he did so because he had read the speeches which the Rev. Mr Heathcote delivered in Wellington and Christchurch, and he could assure them that they would hear something very much out of the ordinary. He was sure after they heard what ho had to say that they would go awav feeling that their attendance there had been well warranted. He would like to announce so that there might be no interruptions that at the close of the address a quarter of an hour would be allowed tor the answering of questions, and he asked that these should be put in writing and handed to himself during the progress o the meeting. Respecting the platform ot the Moderate League, he stated that in 1918 vorv elaborate promises were made by the amended Licensing Act of that cession as to what would happen in the event, of State control and purchase being carried. Among other things, the controller who was to he appointed by the Governor-genera! was to take oyer the breweries and the hotels with all their furniture, etc., and to enable him to do that authority was given to raise no less a sum than £10,000,000. Ho knew that proposal had hct'ii a great source of objection on the part of the prohibitionists, but the Moderate League, which did not appear much on the surface, had been doing some very useful work, and a Bill had been drafted which was proposed to amend the Act of 1918 in several ways. One ot the main proposals was that instead of_ the controller having to take over automatically all the hotels and breweries He should take over such of the hotels £ind furnishings, etc as in his opinion would be necessary for carrying out the administration under State control. It was also proposed to allow a period of three years from June next before the licenses would automatical! v ' lapse and during that period those licensees whose hotels wore not taken over would have to set their houses in order Another proposal was that the licensees should receive no compensation _ whatever for the value of their properties under the system of State control. These two points" which he had mentioned won PI. lie thought, remove most, if not all. of the obiectious of the prohibitionists to the platform of the Moderate League. He was sure that the measure in its revised form would appeal to them as being tar better business than the carrying of prohibition. (Applause.) AIR HEATHGOTE’S ADDRESS. The Rev. Mr Heathcote. who was received with applause, said that tins was his first visit to Dunedin—the Queen Gity ot New Zealand and the Edinburgh of the Southern Hemisphere. The move he saw of this country the more he was surprised with its beauty and its grandeur. It seemed to him to be a great pity that New Zealand was not more advertised than she was in the Old World and in the United States of America. Very few people in America knew where New Zealand was few could place it on the map—and, judg;nrr from the emissaries whom they had sent out from that country to guide us m our affairs, it would appear that they knew still less what class of people inhabited these islands.— (Applause.) It seemed that they imagined that they were a race ot people so devoid of culture as not to lie above the level of the aborigines of Australia. He thought that if they needed to send instructors from the States of America .—which he doubted very much the least thev could have done was to send people of culture, from, say, the universities, and not the people they had sent.—(Applause.) He had been described by Mr ( I ussyfoot”) Johnson—whom he understood had been in Dunedin—as a parson of) the leash. That was an unfortunate simile to use, liecause it implied that the other parsons who supported prohibition were on the leash. Ho was off the leash—he was a free manfree to speak, free to think, and he was not chained by tbe illusion of prohibition. —(Applause.) What was the good of a dog in the backyard if he was tied up? He was off the leash to keep the Yankee burglar ot prohibition our of the peaceful house of New Zealand. —(Applause.) Not only did Mr Johnson say that he was oft the leash. He paid him ihe doubtful compliment ot saying that he was beating the Americans at their won game. He said that he (the speaker) could heat them m the art ot lying. Well, he must be good. On the contrary, he had been very careful throughout this campaign of his facts and figures—about the facts and the figures that he had quoted from all sources. Ho could beat the Americans —there was no doubt about that —but he could not beat them at their game of lying. He had only made one mistake in quoting his figures, and he was quite willing to own up to it. He hail quoted some figures about the State of Ohio, and had said that there were about 50 000 illicit stills there. He had taken these figures from a prohibition report. Never again would he quote from a prohibition report.—(Laughter.) In the innocence of his mind he thought that he must be telling the truth when he quoted from the prohibition report. It had also been quoted in the London Times—a very careful paper. No sooner had he quoted the figures than Mr Johnson said that it was an infernal lie —it was no prohibition report at all—it was a forged report. Well, it might be so. but he was a little hit sceptical about it. because it was a fact that there were a large number of illicit stills in Ohio. He did not believe, indeed, dial it was so much an infernal lie, but that (lie infernal lie bad got out of the bag and Otaoo Daily Times Print.

they could no' catch the infernal thing.— (Laughter.) The question arose, then, was Mr -Johnson more reliable than he was? Voices: Yes.

lessee! that prohibition did not prohibit in America and they had openly stated that. A Voice: 'lell us why. Mr Heathcote said that they would hear all about that before they were done. The only possible excuse for prohibition was that it succeeded in prohibiting, and if it did not prohibit it stood condemned of itself. These people confessed that it did not, and human nature being what it was it never could and never would succeed. — (Applause.) Prohibition was not British in its origin. Prohibition did not emanate from British soil; it was typically American, and Americans had been sent out here to support it. If Englishmen or Scotchmen had come out from the Old Country and said that it had been proved worthy of following in their land it would have been a different matter, but no such emissaries had come from Great Britain. It emanated from a country which at the present moment was the most: drunken, the most drug-addicted, the most criminal, and the most law-breaking country in the world. These people had come to" teach New Zealand, which was one of the most sober and most law-abiding countries on the planet at the present time. NO ENDORSEMENT. He had been unable to find any good British statesman who endorsed the policy of prohibition. Gladstone, Disraeli, and John Bright would not adopt it. Many statesmen were anxious for reform, many were anxious to see their country more sober, but not, one of them would adopt prohibition at the present hour. (Applause.) Neither did men of letters in England endorse prohibition. Chesterton. Hilaire Belloc. Bernard Shaw, Wells, and a host of others were all opposed to it. And the same could be said of the great philosophers of England. They all agreed that the principle of prohibition was wrong. It emanated from American faddists.— (••Hear, hear.”) PROHIBITION ACCEPTED AND REJECTED. Moreover, continued the speaker, it was ridiculous to ask New Zealand tO ] accept this scheme when Great Britain lias rejected it, and when so many States in the world had refused it. or having accepted it for a time, were backing out from it. Sweden had refused it by a vast majority. And Sweden bad before it not only the example of the United Slates of America, but that of her neighbouring State of Norway under prohibition, and was able to see the troubles of Norway and the States under prohibition, and therefore she voted deliberately against it. So in Canada. Canada had been under prohibition to a certain extent in the past. One could excuse Canada in a certain -sense because she was closely in touch with the United States and had “ become Americanised in many wavs —and in such v. ay as New Zealand ooaid not possibly be.-(Laughter and applause.) AMERICA A LAUGHING STOCK. Furthermore, prohibition "’as making America the laughing stock of tho_ world at the present time, and leading her into all kinds of trouble, some of which promised to interfere with her international relationships. As an instance of that the shipping trouble might be cited. America found that she could not run dry ships in opposition to wet. ships, and she asked Great Britain ro make her ships that crossed the Atlantic drv This the British shipowners refused do. and thev said that if they were compelled to do so they would cut out the American ports and go to Canada, ''hen Mr Johnson went to England he refused to travel on an American vessel, ’■because he said, ”at any rate Britain is honest -she does not pretend t” be anything else but wet ■ whereas the American ships preteiiu to be dry. and are just as wet as the British ships." I Laughter and applause.) In the.-e circumstance.- the 1 idled Stales luiil been put in the extraordinary position ~f iutvina 10 ask outride powers to help her administer her own legislation- both Britain and Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada had very properly replied that could not interfere in the administration of the internal laws of another ennnPuri her than that, went oil continually by land and sea and air. and the laws were broken evey day. A Woman's Voice; Why are yon breaking the law of Cod.' Continuing, the lecturer dealt with 1 lie internal conditions hi America. Since prohibition cine into force, he said, all kinds of Internal corruption had been increasing, arid the head of the Chicago police force had stated that half his force of 2500 men were hand-in-glove with the bootleggers. Was that a nice state of things to bring about here? He had just received a letter from his brother in San Francisco in which the writer said that when a bootlegger was caught and punished lie was not regarded iis a criminal. Inti n- a martyr, because public sympathy was with him. What greater disaster could come upon a Slate Rian that its people should hold its laws in coutenmt and feel sympathy with those who broke them? He had no doubt that in a great number of minds, particularly hi the minds of business men. the financial aspect was: important. He did not doubt that it was important. It was difficult to see how this country would manage without the revenue derived from _ the drink trade to support the additional police force necessary to trv and administer tile laws, because New Zealand had an immense sea border, and smuggling operations woiikl be carried on on a very extensive scale. It was to be hoped that before the election the Prime Minister would take the country into Ids confidence and tell the people what his views were on that aspect of the question. A revolutionary process. Rut, speaking for himself, he was more interested in the moral, religious, and philosophical side of the matter. He objected to it because it was revolutionary. All revolutions almost always carried within them the seeds of their own destruc-

The speaker said that lie was glad to see his audience interested, because he was going to deal with that point. Mr Heathcoto said he had made a statement that Abraham Lincoln was opposed to prohibition ,and had quoted in support a report of a speech by Lincoln in Congress, which seemed to him good enough authority. But Mr Johnson now said he had a "cable from America stating that this report was a forgery. He had not known before that Americans were so bad as to forge Congress records. But ho still had good authority for the statement that Lincoln was an anti-prohibitionist. In February, 1842, Lincoln bad said; “ Prohibition is impolitic because it is not within the nature of man to be driven to anything, still less to be driven about that which is exclusively his own business; and least of all when such driving is to be submitted to at the expense of pecuniary interests or burning appetite.”-—(Applause.) This proved that Lincoln was a strong anti-prohibitionist. When people complained to Lincoln that General Grant was too often drunk, bo replied: “I wish you would tell mo what brand he drinks, because it might do some good to the other generals.”— (Laughter.) Lincoln was a good man. and what he (the speaker) had said concerning Ins attitude to prohibition was right, anci what Mr Johnson had said was wrong—(Applause.) THE DRUG HABIT. Mr Johnson had denied that the drug habit in America, was as bad as the cabled information would imply, but a cable had been received from Washington giving the result of a commission comprised of throe of the great statesmen of America who had inquired into the drug habits of the country. This commission found that America was now consuming more drugs per head of nomdatioii than any other country in the world. And the Health Commissioner of New York had stated that there was received there about 15 times as much opium nor head as any other country received. ’ Again, the speaker maintained that he was right and that Mr Johnson was wrong.—(“ Hear, hear.”) A PLEBISCITE. Reference was next made to the plebiscite taken on the drink question by the •' Literary Digest,” of (1) those in favour of prohibition; (2) those in favour of saloons. Mr Johnson said that 700.000 had voted for prohibition, and 180.000 for amending the law to the extent of having beer and wine; and (S) those in favour ot going hack to the eld system of the ‘“ wet.” And lie tried to " put this over" the people of New Zealand. The correct' figures were : For prohibition. 356.193. For a modification of prohibition, 376,334. For ‘‘wet.” 187.856. Therefore for “wet and moist’ there were 564.190 votes, and for prohibition 356.193. a majority of over 200.000 for “wet and moist,”—(Applause.) ‘‘l think,” said the speaker, “that, a man who juggles with lignres like that is not worthv of credence.” When Mr Johnson had been in Dunedin lie had spoken about the number ol cities in America which had gone very dry and said that he was prepared to give the figures and his authority. One man in the audience had asked him about Birmingham, and Mr Johnson then looked up his bonk, and said that be was afraid that he had not. got the figures oi this town, lb’ had iold them about a gaol which had been built in Birmingham at a great cost, hut that when prohibition came in there were no prisoners to put in the gaol. They had therefore turned the gaol into an educational building where children could he (aught. He (the speaker), however, had I lie. figures for Birmingham. It had a population of 178.806. and the number of arrests for drunkenness in 1920 came to 2886 and in 1921 it had mounted to 4612. These figures were taken from the New York Current History of 1922. In New South Wales, which was not dry. a gaol had been built at a cost of £40,000. and when it had been built there were no criminals to put into it (applause), and it was turned into a laundry. Having no hearts to make white, they had made their clothes white instead. TAXATION. \s regards the statement that there was no ityreaso in taxation in America, the fact was that the tariff had been increased, and (ho burden borne by the people as a result was simply enormous. 8o on the whole, when we came to examine Mr Johnson’s statement-, one could see that he had manipulated his lignres and Ids facts and that he had not told the truth anything like what, he (the speaker) hat! endeavoured to do during the course of ins campaign. —(Laughter.) As he went round this country he fell more and more that he was carrying out- the fruitless task of slaying the slain. —(Applause ) Alt Johnson had started out as a Goliath for prohibition and said lie would break or mend the will of the people of Now Zealand so (hat they would accept the will of the people of America on this question. But a lew pebbles had bean picked up from the brook of Truth, and thrown, and now Goliath had fallen to the ground as dead as the dodo.—(Laughter and applause.) And no one had contributed more to this result than Mr Johnson himself. Just as some of the guns sent over to the trenches from America, in the Great War, had exploded and killed our own men, so the big gun of America, Mr Johnson, had exploded in the trenches of the prohibitionists and had caused dismay in’their ranks.—(Applause.) And the lady missionary whom thev had not yet heard—she emitted quotations of words mostly, and she has gassed the rest of them. --(Laughter.) PROHIBITION DOFS NOT PROHIBIT. These two speakers, however, had done some good, because they had openly con-

Address by Rev. Wyndham Heathcote

(Reprinted from Otago Doily Times, Thursday, October 19, 1922.)

tion. This thing was revolutionary in itself. The foundation of democracy was to secure the liberty of the subject, and if a majority —a temporary majority—had the power to enforce its will in matters of personal habit upon the minority, then the liberty of the subject was encroached upon and was, in fact, taken away. ‘‘You and 1” (continued Mr Heathcote) “have a, perfect right as free citizens to do that which is not in itself harmful or sinful. As tree citizens we have a perfect right to our liberty, and there is no limit to our limit except an invasion of the rights of another man. —(Loud applause.) If by drinking ginger beer I invade another man's liberty the law would be quite right to step in, but I have every right to drink ginger beer. And in the same way I have the right to drink beer, but if by doing so I become a nuisance and get in people’s way, the law still has the right to step in and make my conduct punishable. But. just as it has no right to interfere with my drinking ginger beer, so it has no right to interfere with my drinking beer if I want to. I do not, think that the Anglo-Saxon race will stand for prohibition when they know what it involves. It means that democracy has become the bludgeon of the people, by the people, for the people.’’—(Applause.) NOT A SPORTING OFFER. Furthermore, the prohibition referendum was not a sporting offer. It: was a case of “heads I win tails you lose ” because if the prohibitionists won then the anti-pro-hibitionists would have to adopt their habits in the matter of drinking; but if the antiprohibitionists won the prohibitionists did not have to drink beer. —(Laughter and applause.) It was also not a sporting offer in another way. If the prohibitionists won there would be no more referonduins; but it seemed to him that: the time for a referendum was after a certain state of affairs had been in operation for a year or two. A Voice: Why not give it a trial? Mr Heathcote: That is just the point I arn making. It, cannot be given a trial because the vote at the next election will decide it. It is settled and cannot be repealed except by an Act of Parliament, and what guarantee is there that prohibition will ever be put as a single issue? Red herrings will be carried across _ the trail. That is the corrupt way in which it was carried in America. OPPOSED TO CHRISTIANITY. Continuing, the speaker said that the assumption underlying much of the prohibition talk was that alcohol was an evil thing in itself. There it was spoken of as a damned and cursed thing. Now to teach and believe that was a revolution in religion. According to Christianity evil did not, exist in external substances, but evil was_ in the will or the heart of man and consisted ot the misuse of that which was good or morally indifferent. If we attached that principle to prohibition and say we accept prohibition because wo think alcohol itself is evil wo surrendered the Christian ethic and opposed ourselves, to the Founder of Christianity. Christianity had never said: "Thou shall not drink.” It had said: “Thou shalt not get drunk." The method of the .rounder of Christianity was not to coerce the will or to bludgeon the mind, but to persuade, entreat, and beseech. No word of coercion would be found in the whole of the New Testament. 'I he Founder of Christianity was Himself not a. total abstainer. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, was, but He Himself most deliberately was noi. He drank wine and lie blessed wine.—(lnterrupt ion.) The speaker did nut say unit there were no total abstainers in the time of the Bible, just as there were now. He had no complain! against these people, because everyone had a right to his own views, but no one had any right to force his neighbour to become an abstainer if he did not want to become one. —(Loud and prolonged applause.; He would ask his audience seriously to consider the fact that prohibition had been tried in the world and that it was opposed to the Christian spirit and ethic. Mahomet had imposed prohibition upon his people and the Turk was a line product of prohibition, when contrasted with the civilisation of Northern and Western Europe. DRINK AND CRIME. They used to be told in the olden days that drunkenness was responsible for about two-thirds or three-quarters oi the crime of (be world. Now lie honestly confessed when he was younger that lie used to believe that. There seemed to be a very direct connection between drink and crime --that drink stood in the relation of cause and effect. Now, prohibition in America had proved that that idea was America’s alone. A Voice: Lies; all lies. Soim body said that his statement was it lie. yet judges in America and public prosecutors could bo quoted to show that he was right. These authorities almost unanimously stated that not only was there an increase of crime since prohibition bad been introduced, but they also almost: unanimously said that (he result was directly due to rite prohibition law. Was (he interjeetor more likely to know the conditions that prevailed in America than these judges? Of course there was some kind of connection between crime, drunkenness, and lunacy, hut drink did not cause crime and lunacy. Crime and drunkenness were symptomatic of mental instability. Men became drunkards because they were mentally unstable. It was a great mistake, however, to think that all mentally unstable people became drunkards. Mental instability could manifest itself in other ways. I; might express itself in drunkenness, in the drug Habit, in sex perversion, in cramped religious ideas. His opinion was that a certain section of the prohibition people—not all of them—were mentally tinstable.—(Applause.) In America there was a great deal of mental instability. They were a very excitable race —much more frenzied and excitable than onr people—and

their mental instability was sometimes expressed in a most extraordinary way. DAMMING THE STREAM. They had to remember that when dealing with a running stream of water, they could not, by putting a block of wood as a dam, stop the flowing of the water. They merely changed its course. In the case of the water they would see that the ground in th c vicinity might at first seem dry. So in thc case of the prohibitory law they would find that at first the old channels in which the drink flowed seemed to be dry. Bui when they examined the wafer it "had percolated round and round, was oozing out and making the ground saturated where it had been dry before. So it was with drink. The original channels might seem to disappear but they would find, as had been shown in America, that drink was flowing in such illicit channels, and that a class of people, especially young girls, were drinking now who had never imbibed before. People asked him sometimes why this was so. He believed that it was for the same reason as Eve ate the apples —she got curious about the forbidden. —(Laughter' and loud applause.) If they prohibited anything that was thevery thing they wanted to have. They were asked to follow the example of a. country which was the most criminal and the most drug-stricken in the world. They might think that lie was talking nonsense , but he would give (hem some figures. A RETROGRADE STEP. Mr Heaihcote said that he opposed prohibition because if carried it would throw hack thc temperance movement for at least 50 years, that it would turn thc law-abiding people into law-breakers, and that it would change the national character. They would become a nation of insincere people, spying, on each other. "What do I rely on?” asked the speaker. ‘T rely on education, especially of the young generation—in teaching the nature of "the uses and abuses of alcohol and its result. In die creation of a strongerpublic opinion.”—(Loud applause.) Let no one think that because he qpposed prohibi tion he was not as keen against drunkenness as anyone in ihc audience. —(Applause.) And there were oilier things as bad asdrunkenness. A Voice: (.Jet rid of drunkenness. The speaker said that therefore he relied on education, on a strong public opinion, and ultimately on greater State control, and on the adoption in this country of some such nla.l as had been adopted in Quebec, or British Columbia, or the Carlisle district. England had always led the way, but she would not load the way for prohibition. Rut she would lead the Western world ultimately in ihe wav of a moderate scheme which" would reduce drunkenness to vanishing point. — Applause.) Great Britain bad nor called on "them to adopt prohibition, and after all Britain was a great country. She was a great country before America had been born. —(Applause.) In the late war site had borne the heat and buiden ot the day ; nd had shed her blood in torrentswhile America The speaker’s words were lost in a burst of applause. If Great Britain bad sent out English or Scottish representatives to ask ns to take into our consideration a policy which she had either adopted or introduced Iher hj ' would have been impressed with ihe importance of the occasion. But ho was certain! v not impressed with the movement from "America.— (Loud applause.) CITATIONS AND ANSWERS. In answer to a question, (he Rev. Mr ] leal bento said that he had arrived in \, n , ,-ii ii in October of last year. He baa vi-.ii,-d San Francisco. Boston, Ottawa (for -ix mmiiiis), Chicago, and Los Angeles. As he went along he had gleaned information from the leading officials in America. The Chairman .-aid that he would answer (he next i|Ucsiion himself The rev. gentleman was not receiving any payment at all. but only ins actual out-of-pocket ex 1,1 )iiv to another question, the speaker Sl i(| dial there were other people than drunkards who would not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Every person who was horn inio the world was in danger of becoming a nuiuicrer. or a drunkard, or a. slanderer, or anything else. “Or a prohibitionist." called out an inteijectoi, amidst load laughter. A lad v stubbornly stood up and in .■fisted thiit her written question should be' answered. Sim then managed to make herself heard to rental it ;and the audience could ihim well agree' with the chairman that it should not have been asked. A Salvation Army lass gave a brief address from the back of the hall until overpowered by interruptions. Several women in the audience commenced in call out questions. A yomi'J man then became very excited,, and "demanded an answer to a question than haul been pul. He also was unable to make 'himself board. . , The Mavov (Mr J. S. Douglas), who had just nreviiiusb arrived on the stage, said that there were no doubt two sides to the question, and everyone had the right to express an opinion one way or the otner. When he had taken the chair at the Rev. Mr Hammond's address a drunk man m th o audience had created some disturbance, but lie was only one of a section which was in no way representative of the Liquor Party. Similarly, some of the interrupters that evening could not be regarded as representative of the Prohibition Party. As free citizens they were entitled to record their votes in the way they thought fit. Hi* desired to say that ho had been privileged to lie a member of the Moderate League for many years, and that he had been associated with many of their leading citizens on the league. He wanted, as a citizen of Dunedin, to move a hearty vote of thanks to the lecturer. He might add that from his own knowledge the temperance workers of the city were rendering valuable service in social work. The motion was carried amidst: loud applause.