Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1901. THE CHURCH AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXII, Issue 17, 19 July 1901, Page 4

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 19, 1901. THE CHURCH AND THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

« . From the standpoint of the general publio one of the most important qutstiona, if not the most important question, discussed by the, Diocesan Synod, which concluded iti annual session last night, was that of temperance reform. In this colony the question has for several years been brought very prominently before the people, and has also, perhaps unfortunately, played a leading part in local politics. The mult has been that tha subject, Instead of being considered

broadly upon its merits, bus become a Party issuo, and the bitler contests of extremists havo mndo a large body of moderate and thoughtful folk fight shy of expressing their opinions. Tho Anglican Church, which is by its bistory uud its constitution broad in its views and comprehensive in its organisation, has naturally found it exceedingly difficult in the circumstances .to formulate- a policy which would reilect accurately the opinion of its members us a collective whole. Tho leaders of tho political temperauce reform movement have consequently been veiy ready to nccuse both clergy and laity of lukewarmness and Indifference. The discussion which arose upon the motion of the Rev. H. Anson, " That the Synod considers that the problem of tompernnco reform can be' tost dealt with ab the present time by the elimination of private profit from the sale of intoxicants, and respectfully requests the President to transmit to the Itight Hon. tho Premier a cbpy of this resolution," must go, a long way to clear up tho position of the Anglican Church, at least so far as this dioceso is concorned. Mr. Anson evidently discovered a common basis, upon which all the rilembets Of the Synod could agree, for his motion was finally carried without a dissentient voice. liy its vote tho Synod has ranged itself upon the side of reform; it has proved that it is not indifferent to the great "drink" problem, but at the same ■ time it? has not identified itself with the somewhat reckless statements and imprudent tacbics of tho oxtreme wing, which would substitute statutory sobriety for moral restraint, and prohibit use because of the existence of abuse. True to the traditions of its communion, which, in spite of this man's "obiter dicta" or another's, hdlds firmly to the "via media," to the "golden mean" of the Roman poet, the Wellington Synod has decided to support not the total prohibition of alcohol, but tho " elimination of private profit from the sale 4 J of intoxicants." .It is the "liquor traffic " which excites tho loudest denunciations of the most earnest Prohibitionists, and it is hard to conceive how they can oppose the removal of the worst feature- of that traffic, even if they still regard the proposed reform as but half the loaf. „. One of tho most striking features of tho dobato in the Synod was the lucid and speech of the Rev. T. H. Sprott, and wo can only regret that exceptional pressure upon our space prevented our reportihg it at length. Vve quito agree with the reverend gentleman *in his fears 'that the Prohibitionists are responsible for much of the apathy displayed by largo sections of tho people towards tho evils of drunkenucss. The extreme advocates of temperance reform, whose sincerity und singlumindcdness we cannot but admire, arc inclined to force a choice between two extremes, and the attacks they make Upon moderate consumers of alcohol must tend to confuse the public mind us to the dUlinct'ion between uso and abuse, between moderate enjoyment and vicious excess. They devote a.l their energies, and wo grant, that Ihoso energies aie great, to tho realisation of the one fnr-olt ideal they have in view. They only too often snub those who would Help thorn to remove somo of the abuses against which they dec.niin, because Mich people do not boo eyd to eyo with them in the I end they desire. In tho excess of their ?.eal they turn contemptuously from proposals for better regulation and for tho elimination of private profit from the "trade." Some of them will denounce .collective control of the sale of intoxicants only a shade less vehemently than they denounce the existing "traftlc. 1 * Then again, Mr. Sprott went to thu very root of the real objection to Prohibition \Vhen ho dealt with its moral aspect ns it concerned the development of individual character. Prohibition is mechanical, one might almost Buy materialistic, in it« operation, whereas drunkenness must be met by moral and, in tho widest scuee of tho word, spiritual force. Prohibit ion attempts, as Mr Sprott said, to do by external compulsion what should be effected by individual self-control. As long as the individual is capable, of such self-control he will win more by having to exercise it than by tho application ol external compulsion. If tjic power of self-control has , been lost, and the desire for drink has be- | come a disease against which tho unfor- I tunate s victim cannot fight successfully, ' ho should be .placed in an institution j .where medical attendance can give tlie proper physical foundation for the moral •fuculties to build upon. It seems to be true that the element of private profit is largely to be blamed for the worst abuses of the "liquor traffic," and this is virtually admitted by the licensing regulations which the State has imposed upon thd "trade." It is also true, as Mr. Anson pointed out, that tho power of the drink interest is enormous, and threatens to become a menace to the State. The State should, therefore, exorcise such a strict control aa will keep the desire for gain within the nnrrowest bounds, and curtail the political influence of the "trade," or if that cannot be done effectively, discover some means of giving practical effect to tho principle laid down by the Synod. But if the traffic is to bo taken out of tho hands of private firm* and individuals, equity and expediency are on tho side of Sprott's cqntention that reasonable compensation should be given to such private firms and individuals as would sulfer. England acknowledged the inherent immorality ol the slave trade, but sho did not refuse compensation to her West Indian slave owners, and she has hod, as was stated in the Synod, to pay a, heavy penalty for giving inadequate compensation to the Dutch slave owners of Cape Colony before the "Great Trek" of seventy years ago.