The Licensing Question.

Feilding Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 28, 25 July 1904, Page 3

The Licensing Question.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Will you kindly allow me to make the following remarks on Mr T. M. Smith's lecture on Wednesday evening last on the "Failures, Fallacies, and Fables of Prohibition." Mr Smith began by apologising for thi shortness of the notice and the , lecture. If the lecturer knew all he might have known, he should apologise for publicly speaking at all m favor 6t the traffic in intoxicants. However, it is so refreshing to find someone bold enough to take up such untenable ground; I was sorry another.meeting prevented me hearing Mr Smith. Mr Smith said "he spoke only as one of the public whose liberties had been infringed. If rumor is correct, he spoke as one of the publicans, who, if not now, has been engaged in the trade. If this is true; it means that his sincerity should be received with the pro- :'; TOTbial grain of salt. Mr Smith ( makes extensive use of the Bible arguaientj and professes to have searohed it from cover to cover, and ■ t can find no condemnation of aleo- J holie liquor. If true, this is a solemn impeachment of the sacred Christian Scriptures, and would alone justify its exclusion from the schools. I have before me the Temperance Bible Commentary by the well-known Drs "F.R. Lees and Dawson Burns, the former Ph.D., and the latter M.A.D.D. "These great authorities prove from the most careful and capable enquiry that there is nothing in the nature - and usage of the thirteen original words standing for wine, etc., in the Bible, which teaches that the use of intoxicating drink is in harmony iwth the Divine will. That in the •vast majority of cases the words the grape itself, dried or fresh, the freshly pressed juice, or the juice boUed into a thick substance like treacle. That wherever the use of intoxicating drink is referred to it is i. invariably condemned. They say, . by way of explanation, that the use of so many' 'words referring to wine ■ -Jq one relation or another has caused 'a great deal of confusion in dealing with this matter." The second proposition of theße authors is "That the Bible teaches clearly and fully, by a series of continuous and consistent testimonies, that intoxicating drink is an 1 evil article, poisonous to - the bodyi seductive to the soul, and, corrupting to the circumstances of man; or to put the idea in another 'shape, we hold that the Bible vindiits claim to inspiration by anticipated on this point.'the fullest witness of science, and haying r <jxhausted the teachings of human

•: -history." Mx Smith refers to Noah, whoi he says " drank not wisely, but 'too well;" -'■■ Surely, he does not* expect us to believe^ that, because a ;\ good man 7 used intoxicating -wine got drunk, therefore God sanc'fapned its. use? Such a statement -is its own refutation.' His reference

'.jtbithat passage in Proverbs is an v iHifortwdate one, "Wine is a mocker, i Bfcrong drink is raging ; whosoever is 1 ■ deceived thereby is not wise," which > he truthfully says, " refers to excess." This proves, that the very nature of -.intoxicating drink is to deceive arid "to ■delude to "excess." Then his v.s reference to Chapter 31 is equally

inconsistent : ". Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, let

jhim'- drink 'and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." This might be said sarcastically, as

r .i|.ift well known no vice causes so y,;jmp6h "perishing," "poverty," and "mjsery.'' Mr Smith overlooked %sbme choice portions in Proverbs, quote one or two: "He that Ibveth wine shall not be rich," or "Be ;*'iipt among wine bibbers, for the flrunkard shall come to poverty," or again, "Who hath woe? Who hath ? sorrow? Who hath redness of eyes ? that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." . At last it biteth like a serpent, and , stingeth like an adder." Yet, according to Mr Smith, the Bible does not condemn intoxicating drink! I would strongly advise pro-liquor advocates Ho let the Bible severely ' alone: . Then for compensation. Mr Smith again gives himself completely away. He says, " the public .had no right to betiefit themselves by taking away another man's business. What a confession. The business of the publican is to sell intoxicants ; ■ and the taking away the license to do. bo, Would be. a benefit to the public. ' Another illustration of the truthjr that- the advocate "of " the .trade" can'i.'open his mouth in its > defence without "putting his foot into ifc": So weak and silly are the sS-called arguments possible for use by pro-liquor men, that it seems mere child's-play to deal with them. Ptfaumirig Mr Smith has some local : admirers - and "disciples, may we not hope^ that some of them may be tempted to carry on the fight. Truth has nothing to fear, but everything ■..'./. to hope for from discussion. Yours etc., J.; C. Thompson.