THE LIQUOR TRADE.

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 September 1918, Page 8

THE LIQUOR TRADE.

iTo the Editor.]

Sir, —The greatest gift given to man and woman is the gift of free will—the power to please themselves. Whether the people of the world to-day are allowed to- carry out the will to ,do this or that, is another matter; but the fact remains if we are really the Christians we claim to be—that the whole of that innumerable pageant of humanity that has passed steadily from life to death, right from the beginning of things, was given, individually, the right to choose their heaven or hell. With this fact admitted, the _ attitude taken up by the Prohibitionists of New Zealand, backed up by couple of well-paid imported antidrink agitators, becomes a little less reasonable and well-meaning than they would have us believe. Mhat is the true object of these; Prohibitionists? Is it to act as soul-bearers to those poor, weak-minded people who make drink their god and them • selves its-slaves? Is it to transform this drink-sodden world into an earthly paradise (a thing whim God was quite capable of doing had He wished it so)? , Is it even a conscientious) and sincere campaign to make the lot of the worker a little easier and a little brighter? Or is it-—and this last suggestion should be carefully studied—a gigantic and shrewd business move on the part of the big business men to stop the flow of money from going to purchase drink, and turn its course into their own pockets? I will take the four suggestions as they are written. Granting that in many cases) —yet still the minority—the curse of, not drink, but excess, 'is ever a- tragic fact in this Dominion, is there any argument to put forward 1 that these cases are inevitable if left alone and that their salvation must come through the efforts of Prohibitionists and by medium «>t an Act of Parliament? Is there > ny Christian or moral teaching that tells us sin can be wiped out by a man-made law, and incidentally re gistering a mark of tyranny, oppression and the thieving of liberty from these —the majority— who have the common will to resist excess? Who are these modern paid saviours who would take away the free will of the majority to drink in moderation, in order that they could force their own will upon the weak —the minority and save them from excess? If drier* —and then only in excess —is a sin, who can refute the statement 'bat the temptations to sin are necessary evils? What would be the object of life if it were not a, testing place for the hereafter? What would life be like if there were no such things as temptations? Drink as a substance is not a sin, but a temptation, and it is only when-man or woman, with the gift of free will, is enslaved body and soul by drink that we get the sin, and even then 1 the on us rests) entirely and finally with the victim. In short, Prohibitionists would like to interfere with the schemes of their Maker. Now for the second suggestion. Drink, or drunkenness, is on effect and not a cause- In striving to put out of existence the drink traffic, Prohioitionists are seeking to hang the raur der’s victim. Admitting, as before, that there are many who are slaves to’ drink, is it not feasible to suggest that, by getting to the root of the evil, by making the social conditions of the worker a little better, by making life worth living instead of trying to forget the hurt and oiiequality of it In drink, we would bo getting a. little nearer that state of bliss Prohibitionists tell us their achievements will bring about? Do not take away drink to make the life of the worker better, but make social conditions better and so give the man heart to fight excess. I now come to the third suggestion. These Prohibitionists paint lovely pictures of what will happen when the country is drinkless; but do they ever mention increase in wages, better housing, working, and recreative conditions? Well, they do in a. sense, but all these things will come from the huge surplus a working man will have when his beer is taken from him! Could anything be more hypocritical and nauseating than this mockery of uplifting humanity at its own expense? We hear the gruesome tales of those derelicts of slumdom; we get vivid pictures of the squalor, misery and crime said to he due to drink; yet these painters forget to tell nsi how it is that the man with the money rarely, if ever, reaches that state of degradation. The answer is simple and true. He has a surplus, and if he spent as much money in drink—champagne and wines-— aq a- worker earns in the same period he would never miss it and the effects would not be noticed. But let a poor toiler—and these are in the majority—drink in the same proportion, and

he brings the wolf to the door and his “crime” shows up at every turn. A lady who asked me to sign the Prohibitionists’, petiton said 1 that if it had not been for drink we could have won the war twelve months ago! What a perspective I If every man in New Zealand got drunk once a week all their lives would it bring the misery and heart-breaks that this war has created? If it had not been for drink we could have Avon the war twelve months ago! Now drink, with, all its) faults, was not responsible for this war, yet we hear this inspired Prohibitionist making such ai statement as I mention, and it never entered her reasoning that if it had not been for the corrupt social, industrial and international oon. fictions ofs the world the worker would have seen to it that there would have been no war to Avin. Anart from the insult to. our soldiers’ efficiency—lack of it due to drink ! it is also a glaring instance of the spirit of the Jingos m their fl.gst for the physical asset of the Avorker, in order that they can use that asset to a more profitable advantage. Never in the past did the nonAvorker take such an interest, in the welfare of the worker as in Tiis prohibition plea to save the latter from a mental and physical ruin. A man without drink works better, longer, and needs less wages than the man who drinks—that’s the reason Avby the Junkergi are fighting for his salvation ! Now to the last suggestion. Who are heads of the New Zealand Alliance? Is there one of them earning less than £4 a Aveek, or, I dare to ask, how many of them are earning or producing at all? Is it a Labour movement, mooted and inspired by arty Labour union in New Zealand? I knoAv * a feAv Labour leaders are Prohibitionists; but are they members of the Alliance? I think not, but I may be wrong. But what I do know, absolutely, is that for every Labour leader in the Alliance there are a dozen avlio- do not draw a Avage Avorking for an employer. Then what is their object? Does the histoiy of the industrial life New Zealand slioav one instance where employers banded together and voluntarily? and without consulting the men, forced a gift of an increase in wages, better conditions, or shorter hours upon them? Hardly ! Still Ave are told’that this campaign of prohibition, backed up by 99 per cent, of the employers of Ncav Zealand, is going to benefit the worker, in fact is the sole reason for its existence. They lie, and all Avbo think lightly knoAv it. The sole aim and object of practically the Avhole of the employers boosting prohibition is to divert the money spent in drink into- other purchasing channels, to ensure better Avorkers for their gain, and to use the absence of drink as an argument AA'hen a demand for more wages crops up.—l am, etc., QUERIST.