CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 14 July 1908, Page 5

CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

DISCUSSED. AT AN ANGLICAN SYNOD.

(Wellington Dominion.)

An animated discussion took place at the Anglican Synod last Friday in connection with the liquor .question. The Rev. J. D. Russell (Petone) moved — "That this Synod is of tne opinion that the elimination of private profit in ,the licensed sale of intoxicating liquors is the .first step in the direction of necessary temperancVTeform, and trusts that the Legislature will provide every facility to give effect to the expressed desire of the majority of the people of New Zealand in this direction."

"GET OFF THE FENCE." The mover said that the present was a very critical moment in connection ,vyith the liquor question. "He had an excellent example for his action in the> Bishop of London, to whom the bishopric of this diocese had once, been offered. He thought that the New Zealand Church had shown a lack, of enthusiasm in regard to the temperance fight, but now people were looking to the Church to get off the fence, and show where it really stood. Some years ago the Synod had passed a motion in favor of State control of the liquor traffic, but that issue was not now before them. The question lay between license and no-license. He praised', the splendid, dominant stand. taken, by the Church at Home upon this subjectHe had worded the motion so as not to injure the susceptibilities of those who did not support straight-out prohibition, while showing that the Church was on the side of the people in this matter. He was glad to know that Bishop Julius, of CJbristchurch, had spoken with no uncertain sound on this question. Bishop Julius had said that he would rather die than vote for continuance; the open-bar trade was a disgrace to our civilisation. The mover had written to all the clergy and synodsmen ofi the no-license districts, asking for their opinions on the working of the system. Out of ten replies received eight were distinctly favorable to no-license. The Rev. J. G. Bartlett, formerly of Wellington, and now of Oamaru, wrote • that that town had lost nothing, but on the contrary had gained under nolicense. While the system was not a complete remedy for the present evils, he believed that it would be strongly beneficial to the rising generation. The Rev. EL Whitehouse, of Ashburton, had been • converted to no-license by his observations of that system in Ashburton. The^ mover said he would not have credited the improvement at Ashburton if he had not seen it with his own" eyes. At nights and 'on v sale days; there was no drinking or disorder, such as he had se&n before. . The padded cell reserved for sufferers from delirium trcmens had been used' only once in five years under no-license; the lock was rusty, and grass had overgrown the pathway of approach. Church charity funds had been put to other uses because of the diminished claims upon them. Fl Ferriman, a no--license advocate of the 1 town, had offered to accommodate and pay the expenses of /anyone who wished to make an,., independent study of conditions.The removal .of the private bars was the essential first reform. After Dunedin, the Wellington diocese had done more than any other in the Dominion towards carrying no-license, and if the / Church would give its membership the required lead they would carry the reform this year in electorates where iii was almost gained three years ago; 7 The Rev. J. R. Cassell (Hawera)', seconded the motion. He thought that the Church should express a definite opinion on the liquor question. , • ;

A MODERATE VIEW. . ' Archdeacon Towgood (Marton) said he could not quite see that iEngland and New Zealand were in the same ; position. He sympathised with a remark of Mr Balfour, that it would bo l a robbery of the widow and orphan 'to> confiscate licenses without compensation. Here, however, there had been 'a' growing tendency to no-license for several years. In his own district he had tried to induce the publicans to form an association of their own, take the * public into their* confidence, and make it clear that there were no infringements of the as 'it stood. But ,he had never received any satisfaction from his attempts. He thought that the people had suffered so much from abuses of the license system that a growing number were now determined upon prohibition. He could not concede /that wine and beer were evils in themselves, but the position w,as that the trade would not reform itself arid could not be controlled. There was no doubt but what the introduction of nolicense into ' various electorates had been attended by very ' practical benefits. ' At the same time he thought that the gifts of God would* be used again, . when prohibition had had its day, and perhaps they would then bo used properly.' He had found from enquiries that the most unexpected people, men who were far from being teetotallers, had voted for no-license; v and would fio so again, because of the abuses which existed in trade. It was a great pity that leaders had not arisen to combine the forces of moderation, so that an i attempt might have been made to retain the sale of liquor, shorn of those abuses. Meanwhile, he quoted the opinion of a friend who said, "Reform? It's too late to reform. Kick the whole thing out, and let it come back, purified." ' Mr fvf/i Nevins (Tinui ) vr S ed th a* & was of little value to< carry prohibition in single electorates, because liquor would be imported from surrounding districts, ' 1L Mr . A v^- -Comptoo (Mangatairiokaf thought that previous speakers had got away from, the motion, which was equally m favour of total prohibition, reduction^ btate control, and .municipal control. He : ™«. in '»][»«» Mmself of a modification of the Gothenburg system, but the motion was sufficiently general to cover a variety of detailed views.

AN AMENDMENT. Tfie Rev. C. Harper (Palmerston NortW wanted to know what was meant by the ast sentence of the motion. It seemed like an. endeavour to entrap the Sy&od mto an expression of opinion m favour of the i absolute majority in No-License, when it thought that it -was voting for the elimination of private profit. If that wa«r intended, he very strongly disap* proved. He believed that there' wer^ noV six .members present did ndt sujw

port the first half of the motion, but he l ( dia aiot lilfe squeezing in, in an ambiguous statement, something that was moving this land from one end to the other. He moved as an amendment : — "That the wordp after liquor shall be omitted, and that their place be taken by the words, 'will be of the greatest importance to the cause of temperance in this country.' " Captain Hewitt (Psjlmerston North)} seconded the amendment. ' The afternoon adjournment took place at this stage. ' AGAINST NO-LICENSE. When the Synod resumed at 7.30 p.m,,< Mr Wheeier (Feildiiig) suggested that the motion had been drafted by someone other than the mover, and that Mr Rus-' sell had moved it in all guilelessness. As regards .the results of No-License, he quoted figures from th& No-License Handbook, to the effect that in 1902, when that reform was carried, the number of charges heard in the Ashburton Police Court was 309, and the number last year had increased to 316. T^he number of offences in regard to. liquor- was 93 in 1902, and 103 last year.' During the five years of No-License the population had increased from 2500 to 2563. As these had been the five most prosperous years which N.ew Zealand had experienced, he thjOUghil that this very small increase was proof, that No-License was not all that some people imagined. He didf not suppose that the population of any other town in New Zealand, had increased so little. ■ 1 ' THE OTHER SIDE. The: Rev. G. H. Isaacson (Pahiatua) expressed regret that Mr Russell had worded his, motion, as he had. In supporting ' the amendment, he pointed out that at the present time No-License, was the only weapon ,ihey had to hand' against the evils that" existed. There were some things which' , No-License could not do, Diit it' would remove a standing temptation front before the eyes of many 'people. He did not value the objection •of injustice t to licensees. During the last ten years nearly every public house in the j, country had changed hands, and every licensee who 4ook possession knew that his license was liable to be taken away from him' within three years. The j argument that No-License, was opposed to the liberW of tfie subject could not ( be considered, because '• in New Zealand, especially, tJiere were nvunerous laws infringing the same liberty, j Mr E. Barton (Hawera) decried the endeavors to make men moral by removing all temptations from their path. ■ These were hotels that were a credit to the men that kept them. Those < who laughed ■were people who (never went inside an hotel. (Laughter.) If the Synod wanted to move in the matter, it should pass, a motion urging that the* magistracy should take care that licenses were not granted to unsuitable persons, or to hotels that were mere drinking saloons, and not inns. He held, ■ however, that the office ' of the Church was to preach general principles, and that the political methods- by which those principles were to b"e carried out ■were too part of the clergy's business. It the license system was an evil, it waa (one to which the entire people of New Zealand had been ' a party, and they should bear the cost of compensating licensees, not all of whom had carried on their business in an improper manner. OTHER OPINIONS. ' Mr J. H. Reynplds (Wadestown) supported the amendment, because he strongly objected to an attempt being made to engineer the support of the Synod for the temperance party at the general election. Mr ' Eussell willingly accepted ' the amendment, explaining that he had had no sinister motive in proposing the motion. Mr W. H. Quick (Wellington,) objected to the Synod being ' made a catspaw or expressing an opinion on a matter which it did not come within the ; Synod's functions to discuss. Mr T. Bland (Newtown) censured the suggestion that Mr Russell had brought forward ■ the motion ■ with an motive. The Church of England' had hesitated too long to take a firm stand on the liquor question.' He thought that' Mr Russell deserved praise for his courage in bringing forward the, .motion. , > ' Mr F. V. Waters (Karori) thought -that , Mr Bland had ignored the distinction between the Synpd <amr the Church of England, 1 MR RUSSELL" IN REPLY. ' The mover statedsthat the London Diocesan Conference Had passed a similar motion, showing that ' it was not ultra vires. He had drawn.' t up the motion himself, and b&w now tjiat he had worded it faultily. He had no ' hesitation in , saying that what he wanted was that the Synod should 'affirm* the desirability j of No-License — (laughter and applause) — but No-License was a very different thing from prohibition. (Hear, hear.) No-| License did away with the open bar, but allowed people who so -wished to import their ' liquor in certainT fixed quantities ' registered by the State. He had no thought of committing tHe Synod to the pnnciple of the bare majority ; he believed in the three-fifths majority. " The figures which 3lr WEeeler had quoted as from the No-License HandHoolc ' were; taken from a Licensed Victuallers' advertiseiment in the Dominion, ■which he read. The • advertisement commenced ■with a quotation f norn the . .No-License l Hp.ndbook, but the figures- read ' .by Mr Wheeler were no' .part, of that quotation. He preferred to believe -\yhat he had seen in Ashburton himself, and .been l iold by ! a great many men. to , statements of the 1 liquor party. He hoped that the motioni would be carried, though it' clid," not go ! nearly so , far as the \ Church should! ". The motiohl , as amendad^ Was. carried without a division. t .\i ' " " , "■ B'RQTTGHT TO BAY are thotse. Enemies of civilisation. 'Indigestion .and' D,v]spep: sin. when Dr. Sheldon's Digestive Tunnies rto enroloyed ;" 2s 6d pej* tin. "For sale by chemists and storekeepers. Hnwera;,* F. J. Gapper. Kaponga : and •C. ■ James, Alton.—Advt ' ' '.'■'<" THE "HARTNETT" MILKER. ' Some practical points , proved by '.users of the "Hartnptt" 2 — As a milker an 'entire success, absnlTitelv.'Tion-injarions to cows, increased -mOle yield, increased ' but-tpr-fat tert.. automatic releaser a great boon, making ,over : milking impossible, choap'ef in' upkeep; than any otEer machine, easily operated, /easily' cleaned, milk* -an well* in ther, '-'off, seaFon as in the "flufhi" ' fimp?^ m' ronatrnction, natural and gentle^ in ' acfcfop*/ Note— Futrhinpon's 1 "•.water- 1 power can ■ be used if, desired.— C. Dahl and Co., Ltd., Palmerstdn North. — Advt. -,',,- , .