LIQUOR QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 9, 11 July 1922, Page 5

LIQUOR QUESTION

SUPPORT FOR PRO-

HIBITION

DECISION OF ANGLICAN SYNOD

A LARGE MAJORITY, 1 / —

After a prolonged dfeen&sion, the Diocesan Synod last night carried the following resolution which had been moved on Friday by Mr. R. G. House (Lower Hufct) :— . That in view of the forthcoming referendum on. the liquor issue, this Synod earnestly, commends to Church people in the Diocese the resolution on the subject recently carried at the meeting of General Synod in Auckland, -which is as follows : —That this Synod expresses its strong conviction that it is the bounden duty of Christian people, unless they are prepared to vote for total Prohibition, of the liquor traffic, to have some other drastic remedy for. an evil which is sapping the morals and efficiency o£ the community. CHURCH SHOULD NOT DICTATE. Mr. E. Whitcorabe (Pahiatua) said the motion, was ambiguous in that it could be made to say. something that it did not say. The resolution of General Synod was not mandatory, as people might believe. The Church would not admit the right of Parliament or anybody to dictate to it on spiritual matters. If the Church wished to Tetain that right to itself it should be prepared to grant a similar right to individuals. There was hardly anyone who would not welcome an improvement in the conduct of the liquor traffio> but Parliament had not done its duty and had thrown the responsibility of taking action on to the people. ,It would be inconsistent for the Church to say to individuals that they should not use j!alcohol, and yet use alcohol in it? own Sacraments. The Church could advocate reform in the liquor traffic without urgingl a couTse of action which was intolerant. Mr. G.: Shirtcliffe raised' a point of order that Miv " WhitcombV was not speaking to the resolution.. . The Bishop agreed with Mr. Shirtcliffe. The resolution of General Synod could not be amended, and all. the Diocesan Synod was being'asked to affirm or reject was the resolution of General Synod. ■ . . ■ Mr. Whitcombe was allowed to proceed, and spoke of the building up of character. An individual who knew that he could not get drunk—being hedged round by iron laws—was useless as a man, but one who abstained because he believed liquor would do him harm was a man, Were reasonable reform of the liquor traffic suggested, there was no doubt as to how the people would vote, but because the Government had failed to. act was no reason w,hy an intolerant measure should be passed. Mr. Whitcombe moved the following amendment": "That all the words after 'This Synod' be struck out, and the following inserted: 'Having to its hand the greatest of all Temedies—a more active Christianity—leaves to Parliament the duty of the State to regulate the trade so as to-minimise the evik without intolerance." The Rev. F. Ranison (Bulls) said he thought that if the amendment were carried it would'go throughout the ,land that the Church of England was against Prohibition. ' Voices: "No." ! "NOT OFF THE FENCE." The Rev. H. B. Goertz (Patea), who seconded the amendment, said the Church o£ England was out for temperance —not Prohibition, which was a form of intemperance. It should riot go out that the Church of the province of New Zealand was "off.the. feftce" and was in favour of Prohibition. That would doj infinite, harm. Christ was not a Prohibitionist, and no one could suggest that the methods of Christ or. the Father were methods of Prohibition. It was the bounden duty of Christian people to find some remedy which would mitigate and finally do away with present evils. The growing generation was not submissive to authority, and that was an evil that had; to be dealt with. A POLITICAL QUESTION, Mr..W. H. Maclean (Hunterville) contended that, Synod was not concerned with the evils of over-indulgence in liquor, but with the resolution of General Synod. The Church should not' take part in a political question. He was opposed to the motion, which, if! carried, would be used for political propaganda. , . '. ■ . ■ The Rev. K. J. M'Farland (Palmerston North) considered that' Prohibition was a moral question, and the Church' must express an opinion one way or the other. (Hear, hear.) The Government had made two attempts to regulate the traffic—namely, ." anti-shouting " and 6--6' clock closing, and both were failures. Prohibition was put forward as the only remedy, and it was not a new or spec-! tacular movement, as some had claimed. ' The Church must look .at the matter j from a social point of view, and. they must admit that the liquor traffic was a social disease. -'-' SAVOURS^ OF IMPUDENCE." -'I have a rooted objected to any body of men dictating to others to do certain things," remarked Mr. A. Rutherford (Eketahuna). "To me it savours almost of impudence.'-' He opposed the motion. y ■Mr. R. Wilberfoss (Wellington) said the motion passed at General Synod had 'been framed in order to get that body out of an awkward position in its consideration of the liquor question. The clergy and the laity had not been unanimous. The speaker was against compulsion, "lam a moderate, and never take a drink in the daytime," said Mr; Wilberfoss. " I have not gone to bed three times in the last three years without having a whisky, and I am going to 'get it. If tho day should come when I cannot get it lawfully, then I'll get it if I can." {Loud laughter.) The Rev. R. Franklin (Hawera) wanted to be clear whether the resolution of General Synod favoured Prohibition Bishop Sprott: "I cannot tell you what was in the mind of the Archbishop." (Laughter.) Mr. Franklin: " I will ask Mr. House what he implies. Mr. House: " It implies what it says." (Laughter.) Mr. House said that if he were asked for a definition of his motion he would reply that it advocated Prohibition. _.' Archdeacon A. L. Hansell (Lower Hutt) said that many members of Synod did not cigree with Prohibition. Well let then*'pass the motion, and go homo and think out some drastic remedy for an evil which was sapping the morals and efficiency of the community. That was all the motion meant. Mr. E. F. Hadfield (Wellington) said he would do his best to put the motion out. Prohibition was contrary to the teachings of the Founder of the Christian faith. PROHIBITION ROUGH ADD CRUDE. The Rev. Mr. Franklin said that Prohibition was a rough and crude way of dealing with a small evil. The "Prohibitionists always took account of the I drunkards and not the moderates who took alcohol for their benefit and cheer. Because a j Email number of abnormal people did harm to themselves, why

should the great majority have to do without alcohol? Prohibition was intemperate and un-Christian. The Rev. H. A. ' Walke (Petone) said Christ had been willing to sacrifice his life for his disciples, and yet members of Synod were not prepared, to make a sacrifice. If the liquor traffic was an evil, then they must remove it. * The Rev. V. H. Kitcat~ considered the resolution of General Synod to be a challenge to the individual consciences of Church peoples. Mr. H. E. Evans (Wellington) said he supported Prohibition,. which was the ;clear intention of the . resolution, and members of Synod should be aware of that fact. . ". .■■■•• SHOULD BE GIVEN A TRIAL. ■ } The Rev. W- Fancourf (Newtown) J [thought the resolution to be perfectly j clear in its meaning. They had been told , that there were fanatics on the Prohibi- ; tion side, but there were fanatics on the other also. They should give Prohibition ' a trial, as it was a sacrifice for their weaker brothers. | After other members had addressed Synod, the amendment was put and,defeated on the voices by a substantial majority amidst applause. The motion was carried on the voices, also by a substantial majority;