PROHIBITION.

Evening Star, Issue 19919, 16 July 1928, Page 10

PROHIBITION.

TO TUB EDITOK

Sir, —“Observer” adds an offence which appears very like deliberate dishonesty. Perhaps the most notable feature of “ Observer’s ” letters is their production of so-called which he is singularly averse to relying on or defending when it is attacked. In his first letter he built his case on the Bible and St. Paul, When I replied, and gave him some of both to the exact contrary, leaving him without a shadow of support from that source, he did the only thing possibleslid away on to something else. His second point was the alleged arrests tor drunkenness in the United States since Prohibition came into force. When tho unreliable nature of his figures was pointed out, “ Observer ” skipped away again. We were next treated to- a quotation, from a wellknown writer of comical sketches, against Prohibition and the insinuation I that tho Episcopalian Church of America had as a result of a questionnaire seconded its verdict against it. My crushing reply showing this questionnaire and its authority to have been already exposed in your columns drew from your observant correspondent, the astonishing statement that tho paper publishing tho exposure was not known to him, but that the facts and figures in connection with the findings were widely published. That “Observer” could not and did not produce same is, of course, a small item. I'ho quotation of various men, 1 pointed out, was not of special importance cither way, since 1 could produce as many and more testifying to the opposite, but quotations we still are getting. Of course, flic tolling replies of other correspondents were altogether ignored in this and other connections. Tho letter of July 7 contained as well some more quotations from those who are of like mind os “ Observer.” Evidently my challenge that 1 could produce tho absolute contrary from the President of the United States down does not deter “Observer” from using what is patent very weak as assistance for his contentions. But what would you? A grasping at straws is imperative if the swimmer against tho tide of Prohibition facts is to keep TiimsClf oven in sight let along make headway. Now “Observer” writes that my witness, I as quoted by your'paper, has been “ detected in a glaring misstatement.” i This is absolutely false, and “ Ob- | server” knows it. He has nob contn-

bated a lino which proves tho Outlook’s 1 account to be anything approaching a “ glaring The disingeniousness of Observer, is, however, very ‘‘ glaring indeed, i can quite understand why Observer, who has been confronted with sundry unpalatable facts regarding liquor in New Zealand, should continue to be interested in far-off America, and also continue to rely on that anything but reliable method of propaganda, quotations from home and those against Prohibition. Why does “ Observer riot'observe the rottenness of the liquor traffic in New Zealand, and why is he so 1 averse to answering letters calling his particular attention to the fact. J do not propose to go into Observer’s” last quotations.except to remark that, aside from the statements of those who are working strongly to Cause the repeal of Prohibition, the conditions complained of bear witness to two things:—(l) The rotten, underhand, lawless nature of the same liquor traffic which gives us so much trouble in New Zealand, and (2) that there is a very real enforcement of tho law. “Observer” writes of the “many thousands who will be robbed of enrploymeut” by Prohibition. Will ho inform us upon what authority or what reason ho has for thinking that one single person will be rendered idle? Will he also tell 'us who are the ones to talk of being robbed of property, the people of New Zealand, upon whom the liquor traffic has, fastened itself and whose lifeblood it sucks, or the few interested men and women who deliberately enter a trade which they know has a sentence of death hanging over it? New Zealand facts are markedly repugnant to “ Observer,” who observes that they are verifiable and authentic, without nope of dispute. Evasion is the only possible refuge, but that will not be allowed him. American Prohibition is plainly to the satisfaction of the persons who live under it; aud who are the best judges. Even tho uncritical .“man in the street” is able to see that fact. That being so, will “ Observer ” please reply to my own and other writers’ questions and statements regarding the operation of the liquor evil, in New Zealand? I am still awaiting an explanation, which is not also an indictment of the liquor traffic, of that 77 per cent, increase nor year of illicit soiling of liquor in the restored area of Ohincmnri. —I am, etc., Lim.aTV. July 14.