Mr. John Duthie, and the Wellington Prohibition League.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 54, 31 August 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

Mr. John Duthie, and the Wellington Prohibition League.

The following correspondence has been placed at our disposal for publication : — The Secretary, * Wellington Prohibition League. Sir— ln an abbreviated report of a meeting of your League, which appeared in the Post of the 3rd inst , and which was pre sumably contributed, thepublic wasinformed that you were iustructed to address me fu an explanation as to certain words which il was alleged I had used in reference to yom SvOiety. As, after the lup-e of ten diys, 1 have not heard from you, I think I ma) iairly ask why such a statement was published. I am, yours respectfully, UNO. DUTHIK. 14th August, 1895. John Dnthie, Esq., M.H.R., Wellington. Dear Sir— l regret that, in the absence from Wellington of the Seoretary of the Prohibition League, a misunderstanding between the President and myself has allowed the matter mentioned in your letter of yesterday, and addressed to the Seoretary, to remain over so long. lam instructed by the Executive of the League to write to you with reference to an expression whioh appeared in the Parliamentary Jottings of the EvEKIKa Post of 28th June, in which you were reported to have referred to the work of the Prohibitionists in what seems to us a very unfair manner (the exact words were: "This wretched Prohibition sham, this humbng and fanatic cant"). Wo notice with pleasure that the word "sham" in the Post report is omitted in the Hansard version, and trust that you may see fit either to withdraw the words "humbug" and "cant" also, or to substantiate what we regard as an imputation of insincerity or fraud against men who, however mistaken, are making great personal and pecuniary sacrifices in behalf of a cause that they behove to be just and sacred. I am, yours respectfully. Joint Niool, Aoting-Secretary, W.P.L. Buckle-street, Wellington, 16th August, 1896. John Niool, Esq., Acting-Sea, Prohibition League, Wellington. Dear Sir— l was duly favoured with yours of the 16th inst., in reply to my note asking for an explanation of the paragraph you contributed to the Pose on the 3rd inst. Ton assume that since the Hansard report differs from the Poor by the omission of the word "sham," that I withdrew it, and you now ask me to also withdraw the other words ; but, as the missing word was the mildest of the three, it is Boarcely probable that I strnok it out, leaving the stronger on record. I gladly recognise all you claim as to the personal and pecuniary self-saorifice made by your members on behalf of Prohibition. I also claim to be equally in earnest, and that my attack on your League arose from a deep sense of duty. Let me further Bay that I deplore as keenly as you do the misery and waste arising from intemperance, and that I equally recognise the cause of temperance as just and wared. When, however, you claim the like for Prohibition, as by your letter before me, we must differ, as I regard the latter as an unwarranted attempt to interfere with men's rights and liberties, and to claim such a cause as sacred justifies, I believe, the strongest term I used. As a representative I am especially concerned in the cause of good government. Many legislative evils have recently come upon us, and more are imminent, for whioh as a League you are not without responsibility. Some three years ago a crusade was entered upon by Mr. iStt on your behalf : he then explained how pliable politicians became before organised political pressure. It was urged that in the choice of candidates all other considerations except their views on Prohibition were of minor importance. On the eve of the last general election resolutions were publioly carried calling on the members of your body to vote the Prohibition ticket, and a similar course was followed throughout the colony. Thus electors, so far as your influence went, were led to abrogate their first daty to the common weal, and so you have filled the House with a band of men supine on all eoonomioal and political principles, but always ready to pronounce the shibboleth of Prohibition. Further, and pursuing like tactics, if I may judge by my own experience, your League, through its -various branches, by letters of thanks on some occasions, or requests for explanations on others, -seeks to impress members with its watchfulness ; but it is more than doubtful whether such an attempt to control representatives is in the best public interest. Meantime, I fear, the cause of temperance is neglected. Statistics show no decrease in consumption beyond what may be ascribed to the depression of the day. There is law in abundance, but not enforced ; -and there exists a strong public. sentiment, whioh is outraged while drunkenness continues and homes are made miserable, always ready to support you in every legitimate effort. There is power to cancel the licenses of offending housesand to reduce theirnumbers. So supported, you could compel publicans and proprietors of hotels, in their own interest, to respect the intent of the law. To effect this is, however, real work, and it seems to me you are forgetting what could be done, and so you are in danger of becoming mere political agitators, and hence I used the somewhat contemptuous terms of which you complain. ' You will therefore see how impossible it ,is for me, believing i the terms to be justly applicable, to comply with your request and withdraw the words which have given offence. While thus fully replying, you will, I trust, recognise that as I have little leisnre I may be unable to write again, and I would ask that in the course of the week you will hand this letter to the Post for publication, along with any reply yon may consider desirable. . I aui, yours respectfully, j 1 Jno. Dbthib. ' I Wellington, 19th August, 189 S. John Duthie, Esq., M.H.R., 1 Wellington. Dear Sir— Your letter dated 19th instant reached me on the 21st. It seems that we were sadly mistaken in our theory as to the omission of the word "aham" from the Hansard version of your speech. You say that you consider this to be the " mildest " of the' three epithets which you had applied to the Prohibition Party. We must, therefore, suppose that it was because the word in question was too flattering that it was struck out of the Hansard report. But, on the whole, your inveotive strikes us as more ' tolerable than your flattery. While you Beu-saorifioe made by many of us on behalf of Prohibition, yoi still brand us all as guilty of "sham, humbug, and cant" on the ground that while, like the Licensed Victuallers, you regard the cause of temperance as just ana sacred, you are, like them, unable to extend the latter epithet to the cause of Prohibition. This, surely, is a most -extraordinary justification of your language. You frankly our disinterestedness and therefore our honesty; but in the next sentence you solemnly supplement the admission by reiterating a charge of dishonesty. Can no one differ from you on an important subject without being liable to this charge ? You say that as a representative you are "especially concerned in the cause of good government " So are we, and it is in tie liquor traffic that we see Hie greatest enemy of good government. Here you differ from us, and we recognise that you can honestly do so without any suggestion of "sham, humbug, or cant.' ' Our respeot for you, our respect for ourselves, and our respeot for the meaning of language alike debar us from making such an imputation ; and, for your own sake and not ours, we regret that the same motives do not draw from you a reciprocation of the courtesy. Into the various sideissues raised by your letter we cannot enter fully now, but it would be wrong to pass over your gross misrepresentation of Mr. Isitt. He never said that in the choice of candidates all other considerations except their views on Prohibition were of minor importance." He has invariably declared the personal character of a candidate to be the paramount consideration. You complain that we " have filled the House with a band of men supine on all economical and political principles, but always ready to pronounce the shibboleth of Prohibition." -The House that we have " filled" with our satellites is so dominated by the shibboleth of Prohibition that it is doubtful whether it will even pass a fair and democratic measure of Local Option, but that is a detail. The share which my League took in inviting eleotors ' ' to abrogate t£eir first duty to the common weal" resulted in the return of Sir Robert Stout, Mr. H. D. Bell, and Dr. Newman. We should be glad to know which of these gentlemen has shown himself "supine on all economical and political principles," and which of them is in any respect deserving of the scorn of the junior member for Wellington. Your concluding remarks upon other aspeots of the temperance question carry the weight to which your intimate association with, all branches of temperance work in the city entitles them. But yon err in supposing that we regard the enforcement of the law as beyond our province, and we should be obliged if you oould refer us to any opponents of Prohibition who are willing to help us in the work. Though it occupies a large share of our time and attention, we have hitherto had to carry it on withont any assistance You refer to "the strong public sentiment . . always ready to support us in every legitimate effort "; and we are glad to think that the only active publio sentiment is rapidly ripening in favour of total Prohibition as the only legitimate and effective remedy for theevil* which you join with us in deploring, and that this development is hastened and not retarded by such wild and unjust attacks a* that which, you have recently made.' . J. am, yours respectfully, John Niool, „. Aetmg.Secretary, W.P.L. Buckle-street, Wellington, 26th August, 1596. Seven cases are reoorded in England during ihe present oeutitry where the bride has been married to the best man by the clergyman's mistake or the bridegroom's