LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 87, 10 October 1927, Page 4

LIQUOR IN KING COUNTRY

BISHOP CHERRENGTON'S VIEWS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In reference to the observations of Dr. Cherrington, Bishop of Waikato, concerning liquor in the King Country, I submit the following comments:—

(1) That licensed houses should be opened in the King Country.—Fair dealing requires the Government to keep the pact with the Maoris, who still do not want licensed- houßes in the "rohe potae." It is true that serious evils arise from the illicit sale of liquor there, but the remedy for these evils is not the opening of the liquor bar. In Ohinemuri, before the last poll, theer weer evils arising from the illucit sale of liquor. Ohinemuri went back to license, with the result that the number of cases dealt with in the Magistrates' Courts of Waihi and Paeroa so increased during the first six months of license that, if the figures for the second sis months equal those for the first six, the cases dealt witn will show an increase of 163.9 per cent., and the number of arrests an increase of 185 per cent, over those for the average of the last three years of no-license. There are evils in the United States due to illicit traffic, but the States will never go back to the saloon.

(2) That licensees are well-conducted and honourable.—Unfortunately, licensees in general are not what the Bishop thinksthem to be. The reason is that the bar trade is a dangerous trade, and hurts the Beller of liquor as well as the buyer. In the year 19UM.7 there were 1199 licensed houses. During 1916 there were 223 convictions against publicans for breaches of the licensing laws. The percentage was about 10.3. The percentage of convictions in cases tried before Magistrates for all offences for all the people of the Dominion, including Maoris, between the ages of 30 and 65, during the same period was about 7.7. So that licensees, by reason o£ the bar trade, compared unfavourably with the rest of the people. There are no later figures available at the moment, but the same general result would be found to apply to the present time.

(3) That Prohibition is contrary to the express teaching of St. Paul.—lf the words referred to are an authority for the licensed traffic in alcohol, they are also an authority for a licensed traffic in opium. I will put a question: Is the Bishop in favour of the licensing of 1199 opium 'joints' in the Dominion? If not, why not? (4) That Prohibition is Manichean in tendency.—l take it that the Bishop means that Prohibitionists look upon alcohol as an evil thing. Theer could be no greater mistake. The New Zealand Alliance has never made such a pronouncement; and a public statement is the only statement that may properly be criticised publicly. Prohibitionists regard alcohol as a good gift of God. Next to water, it is the most useful fluid on the face of the earth. It has a thousand uses in manufacture, practical science, and the arts. There -is one limitation to its uses: it is harmful for beverage purposes, though it has a limited use in medicine. " Benzine also is a very useful fluid, but it is not fit to drink. Alcohol is defined by medical Bcience aB an irritant narcotic drug, comparable in its effect with arsenic, opium, and strichnia. I need not give references, as this statement will not be challenged. The children of the Dominion ate taught, on. the authority of Education Report No. 13, that nlcohol is a poison. This statement regarding alcohol has been before the Dominion now for some years, and has never been publicly challenged.. The Manichean heresy does not apply. Alcohol is not an evil in itself,-but its. use as a beverage leads to many 'evils,, as anyone who has eyes to see much acknowledge. (5) That Prohibition is unmoral.—lf:. the prohibition of the sale of a-dangerous drug be unmoral, then other prohibitions are unmoral; and in that case our whole social scheme of life needs remodelling. The fact is that we are surrounded by a thousand prohibitions which we accept readily because commonsense teaches us that they are necessary for the preservation of the race. It is no more'unmoral to prohibit the sale of beverage! alcohol than to prohibit the indiscriminate sale of opium.

(6) That Prohibition is ,a retrograde movement. —By no means. The example o£ America shows that it is a forward movement. It is no more a retrograde movement than the prohibition, of gambling saloons, houses of ill-fame, illicit stills, free sale of poisons, insanitary dwellings, and a hundred other bad agencies. "The power of the .choice" in such cases is indeed lessened but the prohibition results in a general gain, not a loss, in the,moral fibre of the people. , (7) That no State has the power to fram lan^s which do not commend themselves, etc.—Then, if this be true, will the Bishop object to Prohibition if the. community at large desire, by a decisive vote, that reform? For if the reform be not granted then, the retention .of the_ liquor bar would be, in the Bishop's opinion, an outrageFinally, I would respectfully recommend to the notice of Dr. Cherrington the pronouncement of the bishops assembled at the last Lambeth Conference regarding local option.—l am, etc., P. S. SMALLFIELD, Vicar- of Mt. Roskill, Auckland. 7th October.