THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Evening Star, Issue 3655, 9 November 1874, Page 3

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

The Melbourne ‘Argus’ says: A public discussion which took place in the Town Hall, at Hyde Park, Massach assets, in the month of June last,'between a physician and a clergyman, on the subject of prohibition, as applied to the liquor selling, is noteworthy as showing the logical outcome of the Maine law and Permissive Bill principles. The controversalists were Dr Dio Lewis, who has rendered himself conspicious in connection with the female crusade against the publicans, and the Rev. Dr Miner. Moral suasion found an advocate in the former, and statutory repression was strenuously recommended by the latter. The one treated 'drunkenness as a vice only, while the other regarded it as a crime! Di Lewis contended that every man had a perfect right to eat, drink, chew tobacco, or smoke at his own leisure, so long as he did not infringe the liberty of or otherwise interefere with his fellowmen. Dr Miner took the opposite view of the question, and, arguing with some warmth, laid himself open to the following searching remark by his antagonist“ Dou’t'you see that you have entered a path that logically leads to the control of even a man’s religions views?” “I accept it, cried Dr Miner, “ I accept it. It any views were entertained in society which in the judgment of the Legislature tend to produce as much harm as rum does, it would be the bounden duty of that Legislature to prohibit such views.” Intense excitement pervaded the audience. Dr Lewis sprang forward with, “Dr Miner, I challenge you to put that statement on record. I never heard an opinion which so astonished me. Here are the reporters. Put that on record.” Dr Miner cried out with the same warmth, “ I welcome the reporters. Let them put it on record.” And so the discussion terminated. But the admission made by the reverend disputant ought to open people’s eyes to the dangerous consequences of affording any legal sanction to the prohibitory principle. For if the majority takes upon itself to decide what is good or evil for the stomachs of the minority, why should it not also determine what form of religion is good or evil for their souls f If it should be allowed to close a public nouse because injurious beverages are retailed in it, will it not proceed to declare that certain places of worship ought to be shut up, because what are believed - to be dangerous doctrines aie disseminated in them 1 Fancy a few Dr M’Gibbons armed with legislative authority to give practical effect to their narrow-mindedness and bigotry.