Prohibition Debate.

Hastings Standard, Issue 146, 15 October 1896, Page 2

Prohibition Debate.

The second debate between Mr F. Sutton and Dr Hosking was held last evening in the Princess Theatre. The attendance was very poor. The subject was divided under two heads —(1) What action would Prohibition have 011 the revenue ? (2) How would it affect the liberty of the subject'? Mr Sutton, in opening, said that on the previous evening Dr Hosking's theology was considerably astray, but his figures were even more faliaceous. One of the great arguments advanced in fav«/" of Prohibition was the great National waste which the consumption of intoxicants entailed. His own opinion, as a practical business man of 30 years' experience, was that the nation sustained 110 more loss from the liquor trade than she did from the traffic in tea, sugar, or tobacco. The cry that the nation would be wealthier if the drink trade were abolished was a fallacy, and since he enunciated these opinions 011 the Napier platform his arguments had been quoted by the principal papers in the colony. He was glad to say that for the. past four or five years the consumption of spirits in the colony was decreasing, and Australian wines were fast taking the place of whisky and rum. Last year 94.341 hogsheads of beer were brewed in New Zealand, from which the country derived a revenue of £441.429. If the sale and manufacture of intoxicants were suppressed, the revenue derived from that source would have to be made up in some other way, and the present land tax would be increased one and a half times—that was to say, a man at the present time paying £2 land tax would be required to pay £•'> if Prohibition became law. There were 25,000 directly deriving their livelihood from the liquor trade in New Zealand ; but in dealing with the question the Prohibitionists passed over the interests of this orderly, sober, and industrious class. The issues involved in throwing all these people out of employment were most important, and should receive serious consideration. The original cost of the tea consumed in the colony was ;£173,343, the duty on which amounted to .£103,000. He argued that the public waste in the consumption of tea was similar to that complained of in beer drinking, lioth were done with once they were drunk. The most eminent medical authorities hold tea-drinking to be injurious, and Sir Matthew W. liidley, one of HerMajesty'sCoiumissioners in Lunacy in Ireland, attributed the increase of lunacy in that country to the inordinate consumption of tea. If tea were prohibited there would be a loss to the revenue of ,£103.000. "Why not go in for prohibition in every thing and assume full control of the liberty of the subject by resurrecting the curfew laws '? He believed in temperance, which was opposed to Prohibition. Prohibition insolently says "you must not" and temperance says " I won't."' Prohibition was a gross interference with the liberty of the subject. Mr Isitt said there were 17,500 drunkards in New Zealand. This was a gross charge and utterly untrue. Dr Hosking had argued that 50 per cent, of lunacy was due to drink. The RegistrarGeneral for the colony says that out of 650 lunatics for last year 55 cases were attributable to drink—that is one out of every thirteen cases. English statistics were almost similar. In that Prohibition paradise, Kansas, the lunacy returns show a proportion of 27.92 lunatics to each 10.000 persons, and beer-ridden New Zealand 9\S to each 10,000 persons, or three times as many in the Prohibition State. His opponent had said that 75 per cent, of t-lnj criminals in gaol were there owing to drink. Drink did not create criminals; if a man had a predisposition to crime drink inflamed it. Some of the most dangerous criminals such as bogus company promoters like

Jabez Balfour, from the very nature of their nefarious professions could not afford to drink. In the Prohibition district of Topeka with a population of 15,000 there were in one year 70,000 affidavits for liquor supplies filed by chemists for every conceivable disease that flesh was heir to. He quoted the authority of a sheriff and chief of police of one of the American Prohibition States holding up Prohibition as a total failure. In lowa, a Prohibition State, large establishments were run as completely equipped as any hotel in New Zealand. l)r Hosking said a man was worth .£100') to his country. The Government valuation was £8 or £9. His opponent also said 1,000 deaths annually were due to drink. Very few persons died of the effects of drink under 40 years of age. Last year's statistics showed that 3.044 persons over 40 years of age died, 779 of whom died of old age, cancer, and consumption, leaving 2/265 to be accounted for. Was it reasonable to assume that 1,000 of these died of drink '? Prohibitionists' figures were generally made to fit their fancies.

Dr Hosking said Mr Sutton's charges against liini with reference to his defective theology and inaccurate figures were mere insults. Mr Sutton had no right to touch last night's arguments. Prohibitionists did not want to close hotels, they only wished to shut up the bars ; and, as Mr Sutton says there are 1579 hotels in New Zealand, the closing of the bars would only throw 1579 bar-tenders out of work. There was a great difference between these figures and Mr Sutton's 25,000. His opponent's endeavor to compare tea with beer was absurd. Tea soothes the nerves, but beer drives men mad. There was no authority for tracing lunacy to tea - drinking, and an extract from a paper 100 years old against the use of tea was absurd. Mr Sutton suggested that prohibition be enforced all round and prohibit everything. This was illogical ; it was what is called drawing general conclusions from particular premises. There is nominal liberty, but no one has actual freedom, as the general community has to be protected. Prohibitionists do not seek to coerce ; they only state their case to the people, and ask them to speak at the polls and say whether they wish for the abolition of tlio liquor traffic. If there is a majority of three-fifths of the voters in favor of prohibition then the Government will grant it. If the people decide against it, the question is postponed. There was nothing coercive about this. The attack on Mr Isitt was cowardly. Mr Sutton hail an opportunity of meeting Mr Isitt in debate, but he declined to do so. He held a letter from Mr R. B. Walshe, attorney, of Kansas, spc-aking oi the success of Prohibition in Topeka. Mr Sutton's statements in this respect were unreliable* The gaoler of Napier says 80 per cent, of the prisoners were there through drink. The total revenue derived from the traffic, including Customs, license-fees, and duty on beer was £496.000. That was the credit side of the sheet. On the other side drink was responsible for 90 per cent, of our pauperism. He would only debit it with 75 per cent., or £122,250. The crime due to drink was 90 per cent. He laid 75 per cent, of the cost of crime to the traffic, or £105,000. He would charge the liquor traffic with half the cosji of lunacy to the nation, which vas a fair calculation, and the result would be £26,500. The national loss owing to the money employed u) the liquor traffic

bebtj* nnn m "Tiittve to the workingclause- 1- il ) exceedingly «reat. He would tl 1 the tratio with two-thirds of tht 111% r st on the loan for hospital, gaol. n-_* in iittl court esp< ti.h - i 1 > »i w£33,332: two-tl.ii U of the i,r k- p < i addition ~ to as\ltim.«, hospiraN, p»' > stations, A -.. X- : "V>f>i. t'r-« ■ 'at:- "f the JIUM-. meoas r\p<'<ii.littti>' on romp.'issionate :•!! nidt.>: >fK Ac., £3the t ritir» . >-• ■» ■ leeting the litjmu- vtv-niio. X ">T "<*» • '1 the value of 1000 liv.. - 1.-r .w\ vear through drink. valnim: r.uh lift at £l,ooo £1.000.000. The tot it <-f t.n-. charges to the drink tniiie w.t. XI. IC>0.I)00 which after dfdn.'tini; the ifMimt from thr tr.'flir < X-J'.'o.lMfch the stun of Xt*V4.(*» is to be accounted for, which wis a total 10-s to the country, or in plain language. it co-Is the country X'J to collect XI. The taxes would be reduced by two-thirds if th.; N.w Zr.i'.and lifjiior traffic were al>«>'.is!n d. leaxini; out of the question the nnr d .*>.-p e;, the lives, ruined hom» tul broken hearts resulting from the tr.tfiie.