MR PATERSON'S ADMISSIONS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 572, 17 November 1902, Page 3

MR PATERSON'S ADMISSIONS.

(To the Editor of the Times.)

Sir, —Mr I’aterson is splitting a vory fine straw indeed whon he says “ What I did say was that prohibition did not prohibit in overy case any more than any other law!’ This taken with the admission mado tho manifesto issued by tho prohibitionists that prohibition does not prevent people from obtaining as much drink as they ploaso justifies me in saying that Mr Paterson tacitly admits that prohibition does not prohibit, and I repeat it at the risk of Mr Paterson “ declining to havo anything moro to say to mo.” Mr Paterson entored tho contest to provo my assertions are wrong that prohibition does not effectually prohibit, that it produces worse ovila than, now exist, is a partial failuro in Clutha, has failed in America, demoralises the people, increases ratos, decreases property valuos, and lowers wages. If ho feols that he has enough of it, after failing on his main attack, and wishes to retire, I cannot stop him. I feel regret that ho should attempt to claim anything unfair in my defonoe. I maintain that whon I claim a “ tacit admission” I claim it on the full and true moaning of my words. Tacit moans “ something which tuny fairly be understood though not expressed in words ” If Mr Paterson said straight-out like a man that Prohibition does effectually prohibit, and tried to provo it, instead of asking four questions in tiio naturo of excuses for its failuro, there could bo no assumption of admission. I now challenge Mr Paterson to say that Prohibition does effectually prohibit, and to provo it without evasion, equivocation or excuse.

2. I made the statement “ that prohibi

tion has had a fair trial in Clutha for eight years and is an admitted failuro by its most ardent supporters." Mr Paterson asks for names, I give Mr F. Isitt and Mr J, G. Paterson, both admit partial failure ; any admission from such ardent prohibitionists as the above with the word “ failuro ” in it may or may not justify tko term “ admitted failure.” I leave the matter to the judgment of impartial readers. To excuse this failure Mr Paterson says “ the ‘ trado ’ alone rendered prohibition a partial failure in tho Clutha.” There are two parties to every trado transaction, the supplier and the customer. Tho supplior cannot carry on business without tho customer ; the supplier would cease to supply if customers did not want his goods. Customers are tho people at largo, who, forced by a stringent law and at tho risk of their fair fame, support tho trado in open deiianeo of the law. In addition to proving Mr Paterson wrong, I hold that tho above illustrates that tho proper method of coping with tho drink evils is through the people, and not through tho suppliers, who only exist as loug as the people support them. o. Mr Paterson asks, " Do you actually justily tho breaking of tho law in Clutha, and do you openly incite to lawlessness ”

No, Mr Paterson, I do not, and I am now

doing my best to restrain you from bringing about such a stato of affairs in Gisborne a 3 will create breaches of tho law same as at Clutha. In return I would like a straight answer from Mr Patorson to this question : If tho introduction into

Gisborne of a drastic and stringent law is likoly to lead to breaches of the law, and lawlessness, would he advocate its introduction ?

■l. Mr Paterson's illustrative parallel cases when pushed home to a logical conclusion turn against him. To wit, thieving, crime, and obsceno litoraturo. If it were the law to closo the thieves' dens and atop the breeding of hereditary criminals in order to stop crime ; if all publishers were closed up to stop tho issue of obsceno literature, you would have an argument for No-License, because of tho fact that one per cent of the population become confirmed drunkards, and hotels should be closed too. It is a curious fact that prohibit tonists are demanding more drastic and severe measures agai ist an open and legal trade, existing to supply a public want, than statesmen soe fit to im-

pose on the worst criminals. 5. Mr Paterson thinks that shrewd people are hardly likely to meko mistakes. Kruger was shrewd enough, and proclaimed he was going to “stagger humanity.” IJe hurriedly left hia ruined republic, with his money-bags, his pipe, arid his coffee-pot, and is now ending his days an exile, whilst his poor deluded victims are begging charity from the ‘people whom he threatened to drive into the sea. History is teeming with instances of where misguided enthusiasts have plunged thencountry into disorder and ruin. In conclusion, Mr Paterson, I would ask you to back up your assertions by competent authority, coniine your questions to a reasonable number, touching the vital points of my 11 assertions,” and draw conclusions only on undoubted authority. I am an admirer of Nelson, I love “close action,” and hope to maintain a good cause in tho opinion of all fair Biitishers by doing my duty.—l am, etc., SV. F. Crawford.