ARE PROHIBITIONISTS LIARS?

Hastings Standard, Issue 147, 16 October 1896, Page 4

ARE PROHIBITIONISTS LIARS?

!"To Thk Ei'ltok.l Sir, —The Rev .John Ilosking asks me to prove my contention that " falsehood and uncharitableness are the stock-in-trade of Prohibitionists." I will do so. When a case was being worked up by the Prohibitionists in Christchurch against Coker's Hotel, persons with dark lanterns were planted in an empty house to watch the George-street entrance of the hotel and make notes of what went on. The instructions to these spies were given in unsigned type-written letters. One other spy was supposed to watch from Manchester-street, from an upstairs window of a shop and dwellinghouse, the people going in and coming out of the George-street bar. The persons with the dark lanterns were unable to advance anything against the hotel management, but the party located in Manchester-street swore that he saw men and women come tumbling out of the bar in Georgestreet and committing grossly indecent acts on the footpath. The distance of the shop and dwelling from the corner of George-street were carefully measured an J. the nearest possible line of sight ascertained. Tt was proved by a surveyor that, for the spy to see anything* at all taking place in Georgestreet from the window in question, he would have had to have a neck 18ft. or 20ft. long ! What word in the English language is there that would properly characterise his conduct? On more than one occasion I have heard Mr T. E. Taylor and the Rev. L. M. Isitt call New Zealand a " drink-soddened, drink-cursid country," and on a memorable occasion the Rev. F. Isitt said in the presence of the Premier that the young men of New Zealand were give to the excessive use of alcohol. On another occasion I heard Rev. L. Isitt declare in Cathedral Square. Christchurch, that the men employed in a certain brewery went in sober men and came out broken in health and hopeless drunkards, lie was challenged and told he lied, and it was proved that in the brewery he referred to ihe men had been in the same tan ploy some ten, some twenty years, and that some of them wen? teetotallers, while all of them were good citizens and steady fellows. The '• reverend " gentleman shifted his ground atid said, lie was speaking generally and that he didn't mean any particular brewery ! How and in what way should such conduct be characterised ? Your correspondent " AntiHumbug " tried to palm oil' an if obligation " of Templarism which did not exist, and he now apologises for it. Why did he act so disreputably? Was lie telling the truth, or a falsehood '? Mr T. K. Taylor once declared that W. \Y. Collins was returned by the votes of the " prostitutes, blackguards and publicans of Christchurch." Faced with his declaration, he shuttled miserably and had to eat his words. When a. case was sought to be worked up against the hotel keepers of Christchurch for Sunday trading.certain Prohibitionists—one of them is in Napier now—went to a prayer meeting with bottles in their pockets and, from the church (Wesleyan) went out to entice publicans to sell them liquor and then turned informers and gave evidence against the men they had tricked. The Magistrate characterised their conduct in very strong language. What would any honest man call such trickery and dishonesty ? One of their leaders, when Mr Pishop, S.M., had given his judgment, took the report, cut it in pieces, left out some sentences and joined the two ends together and made the Magistrate say what he never uttered. The act was exposed by myself, and from that day to this, that person has never been able to speak a word in justification of his conduct. What name did he deserve to have tacked on to his act ? When in the course of m v journalistic work on the Star in Christchurch, I had occasion to rebuke the Isitts, what did they do ? Went behind my backto those in authority and made covert threats concerning me and my position in the office. Was that manly or charitable, or Christian ? Again, a " ceverend"gentleman now located in the Push district—when in the course of my «vork in Napier some fours ago I wrote against the Prohibitionists —-went to my employers and endeavored to injure me in my position, and canvassed the district in which he lived to induce people to give up the paper 1 was editing, so as to inflict a wrong upon me with my employers. The same thing was done to me by the Rev. L. M. Isitt in Christchurch, and not only to me but to many others whom I know have had to suffer from the effects of this secret sullying of a man's character b-'hind his back. On the public platform in Christchurch the same " reverend" gentleman's brother spoke of a sea captain and his officers, and declared that " all of them were drunk on leaving a West Coast port, and that the seamen had to work the steamer out of the port." Faced with an accusation of falsehood he failed to furnish an atom of proof. What, then, would be the proper name for such conduct ? To revert to the spying and informing : In one house into which these good young men went, they represented themselves as travellers, and tried to persuade the landlady to sell them drink: She steadfastly refused, and they attempted to still further deceive her ; but she would not give them or sell them liquor. What would any decent man call that ? I could go on multiplying these cases, but I have said, I think, enough this time. I shall, in my next, reply to the Kansas assertions of Mr Patterson, and 1 shall show that whenever and wherever a Prohibitionist endeavors to rpa-kn bis hearers believe that frobibi*

tion would mean cessation of drinking he is guilty of deception of the worst kind.—l aiu, &c., J. T. M. Hor.xsiiV. Wellington, Oct. 15, 1596.