CANADIAN CLERGYMEN CONDEMN PROHIBITION and PRAISE STATE CONTROL

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 November 1928, Page 2

CANADIAN CLERGYMEN CONDEMN PROHIBITION and PRAISE STATE CONTROL

♦ Canada,gave am-extended trial to. Prohibition, but has now abandoned it in favour of State Control. The first province to adopt State Control was Quebec ,and the* results were so satisfactory that .province after province has followed the example, and to-day only the rtwo- small districts of Nova Seo-tia and Prince Edward Island are under prohibitory l-aWs. Seeking the reason for this remarkable demonstration of public feeling against Prohibition, the New Zealand Licensing Reform Association -wrote .to loading citizens of Canada, and the replies received, from leaders of public thought in ail walks of life, indicate, that Prohibition was found to be such a tragic mistake that it has been banished for ever from our sister British Dominion. Among the many replies condemning Prohibition, and praising State Control, are a number from leading Churchmen, of which the following. are' typical examples:— Copy of Letter from the Most Reverend David Williams, Anglican Archbishop, Diocese of Huron, and Metropolitan of-Ontario. The Archbishop’s Room, Bishop Crcnymi Hall, London, Canada. Afay 18, 1928. The Dominion Secretary, New Zealand Licensing Reform Association. Dear All* Armstrong,— Your letter of April 24 received, and in reply let me say: (Government Control).

1. The moral effect has -been altogether good: It has removed the temptations to subterfuges for the evasion of law. The young people no longer consider it “smart” to have a whisky bottle at parties—a custom unkown before Prohibition days, ' but now happily passing away, since there is nothing “smart” in having what everybody cam get if they want it. 2. So far as we can judge, the general sobriety has improved. There have been fewer convictions for drunkenness. Though the number of motors, both local and tourist; has been nearly doubled in this province; the cases ©if drunken drivers have been actually less than under Prohibition. 3. Pot many years public drunkenness has not been characteristic of the people of this province. Public opinion regards it as a disgrace, and our Captains of Industry insist on sobriety in their workmen. The increase during Prohibition was probably due to poisonous- liquors from boot-loggers. It is a rare ! thing -now to- see a drunken -man -on j our streets. 4. I have no- means of knowing how the health of the community has, been -affected. 5. There iis -a revival of trade going on at the present time; but this was coming in any cose, and probably is not due to the change from Prohibition. The people are contented atad happy. - 6. The moderate users are quite satisfied with State Control. 7. The only people who desire a return of Prohibition are principally Alethodists, with whom it is almost an article of faith. The great maI jority of the people want no return. I am, of -course, greatly interested in your method of dealing with the Liquor Problem. AVe, in Ontario, have tried all three of the methods you mention, and I have no hesitation in saying -that State Control is the -best. The other two are bad. The only question is, which of them is the worst. Private ownership tends to encourage drunkenness , which is- bad. Prohibition tends to encourage bootlegging and the drug habit, and so to demoralise the young, to irritate the law-abiding, and to create a general disrespect for law, all of which are bad. I might add that every important province -in Canada, except one, tried Prohibition, and within ten years every one abandoned it in favour of Government Control. The one exception adopted Government control instead of Prohibition. Now, Government Control is practically universal in this Dominion, and to- the best of my knowledge, -the people as a whole are satisfied with it.

Believe me, Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) DAVID HURON. Copy of Letter from Ven. A. E. Burgett, M.A., Archdeacon of Edmonton North, Alberta. Edmondton, Alberta, Canada. May 24, 1928. Dear Sir, —In reply -to your questions of April 24 I beg to -state as follows: 1. The substitution, of State Control for Prohibition in Alberta has been followed by excellent results. Under Prohibition there was lawlessness, and it -led to much drinking of “bootleg”, whisky and intemperance. Since State Control -was established I hardly ever see a drunken man. State Control has had a good -moral effect. 2. Under Prohibition the young people were taking to drinking to an alarming extent, -which led to other and worse vices. Public dances of ail kirids were the scene of drinking (by both sexes. It was due to- the complete failure of Prohibition that the Province threw it out —the country and towns showing an immense -majority for State Control in l -every part of the Province. 3. Public drunkenness has decreased under State Control. 4. The health of -the -community has improved under State Control. 5. Things are decidedly better under State Control. 6. Yes, the moderate users- of alcohol are satisfied with quality of liquors and method of supply. Before, no one knew what he was getting and vile.poison was the cause of mainy deaths and much sickness.

7. No.' Just a; (few fanatics desire to, return, but the country as a -whole I as strongly against Prohibition, and I I neither see nor hear any signs of 1 a wish to go back to Prohibition. Private ■ownership was abused; f rohibitiom was a complete failure, tate Control is a decided success. Yours truly, (Sgd.) A. E. BURGETT (Archdeacon). AS the people of New Zealand will have the opportunity of declaring for a middle course between the extremes of prohibition and continuance of existing conditions at the approaching poll, the foregoing testimony should influence those desirous of securing real temperance reform to cast their votes for the middle issue of State Purchase and Control. *