"WET” CANTEENS DEBATE

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 October 1939, Page 5

"WET” CANTEENS DEBATE

SYNOD AVOIDS DECISION. [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH, October 18. A motion approving of “wet” canteens in military camps was shelved by the Anglican Synod after a. lively debate lasting more than an hour this afternoon. Finally, a motion by the President (Bishop West-Watson) that the Synod pass to other business was passed and loudly applauded. Rev. Kenneth Schollar moved: “That this Synod’ approves of the principle of wet canteens in military camps, as being in the best interests both of temperance and equity, and recommends that this resolution be forwarded to the proper authorities.” “Ever since the matter of wet canteens was first mooted,” he said, “there has been a certain section of the community vociferous in condemnation. There is a danger that this section may be taken as representing Christian thought as a whole. One of the surest, ways of bringing about the abuse of anything is to treat it as abnormal. My normal beverage is milkshakes, but as soon as I get into a dry area my thirst becomes decidedly alcoholic. It was better, in the interests of temperance and sobriety, to have wet canteens under control in the camps, than that the men should come to town with a raging thirst, nine-tenths of. which was bravado. Rev. C. E. B. Muschamp seconded the motion. “I am convinced that what is needed, particularly in this country, is a revised attitude towards • alcohol.” Public opinion ought to be roused to the realisation that drunkenness was a real sin. In two years and a-half at Aidershot he had never seen a drunken soldier, which he attributed to the new attitude to alcohol since the Great War. “We’ve got to bring alcohol into the open,” he said. “I am sure it can best be done by stating frankly that the proper use of it should be tolerated and encouraged; I am quite certain that the reason for a lot of drunkenness is that young men have noi learned how to drink.” (Laughter). Mr M. G. Collins, speaking from four years’ experience in Ihe British Army, said he was a staunch teetotaller, but was strongly in favour of wet canteens. “I have it on good authority that some of the scenes when the men were going back to Burnham from the city were past description,” he said. The men were denied their beer in camp, and probably took more in town as a consequence. Mr A. Garland: I have always found that the camp with a wet canteen is the more sober one. Mr R. J. Richards, headmaster of Christ’s ’College and synodsman for Amberley, said his experience of dry canteens in New Zealand in the Great War, and of wet canteens in England, left him in no doubt about the proper attitude. “It would have a disastrous effect to insist again on those dry canteens,” he said. Mr L. V. Talbot (Temuka) said that, though he had a personal prejudice against wet canteens, he would not, having no experience of them, set his opinion against what had been said. He would not like the idea to get about that the Synod favoured putting temptation in the way of young men. Rev. R. de Lambert complained that some of the remarks of the mover and seconder had put some members in an awkward position. Some might have voted for wet canteens as the lesser of two evils. But he objected to the view that the difficulty was that young men had not been taught to drink. He claimed that sly-grogging was worst in licensed areas. Voices: No. No.

Mr G. Stening strongly opposed wet canteens. There was no “drunken revelry” in the dry camps he had known- Some men were unable to resist the temptation to intemperance. Wet. canteens might not. do any great harm, but it was not the Synod’s place to advise the military authorities.

Mr IL J. Stowell said he had been a prohibitionist all his life. He would not appear as voting for placing temptation in the way of young men. “I’ve had a lot to do with liquor,” he said, “and I have always remained strictly temperate.” “I think it was a most ill-advised action to bring this motion before Synod',” said Archdeacon H. W. Monaghan. (Applause.) “I can imagine the men saying, ‘What has it got to do with the Synod, anyway?’”

Archdeacon Monaghan had jusl moved that the Synod favour leaving the decision to the soldiers themselves, when the Bishop intervened with a motion that the Synod pass on to other business. The Bishop’s suggestion was adopted with some enthusiasm.