THE PROHIBITION QUESTION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XVIII, Issue 1859, 8 September 1923, Page 5

THE PROHIBITION QUESTION.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I have been reading with great interest the various letters which have appeared in your paper on the above subject. Now, al this talk about the celebrated pact is all moonshine, and always has been as regards preventing the native from getting the "waipiro," and is, J. am afraid', being dragged in to partly obscure the issue and is very misleading. I have been in New Zealand very many years and have been amongst the natives a great deal and spoken to them on this matter, and most of them have assured me it was really agreed upon at the time when the railway was making a start from 'Je Awamutu, and it was reallv an honest attempt to prevent the rative procuring liquor, which it never did and never will in my own opinion, for the native can get as much as he wants if he has the money. Now, we will take the question of granting licenses in the King Country. I am certain in my own mind if there were licensed houses in the King Country, and especially round where I have been living the last 17 years, it would do away with the sly grog evil, and also this pernicious system of getting it in by the case. When it is procured in that manner, if it goes to a bushfellers' camp or the fencers, it soon disappears and it means a glorious drunk. The poorest argument I have heard yet against licensed houses is the one that if the people did not like the dry area conditions they could get out. Well, sir, I think they have as much right to stay here and air their opinions as any bird of passage that happens to be located in the district for a year or two. What about those who are born here? If you were to ask them about it I suppose they would tell you they were not consulted on the matter at all. I have a Home paper lying in front of me containing an address by a very high dignitary of a beautiful cathedral, and he went to America to collect funds for restoring this building and was highly successful in collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds, and he made a special study of the liquor laws as then enforced, and he told his audience that lie was confident that Great Britain would never tolerate the prohibition laws that were being enforced in America. I quite agree with Mr Lissaman's remarks in your paper as regards the benefits to be often derived from liquor in moderation. 1 know a farmer in here who owes his life to the use of stimulants; it has saved his life twice, and the case of a child too. In the backblocks here where I am living it is a. real case of necessity to keep some spirits in the house in case of accidents. And look at the way you have to bring it in. Sign a book and have it labelled. Anyone would think you were doing an atrocious deed! that would not bear the light of day. In my opinion it is a slur on the pakeha, and I have always thought so all the years I have lived here. In any case avc have the right to be placed on the same footing as the rest of the Dominion. It would be information for us to know how many thousands of our lads were benefited or their agonies relieved while lying wounded on the field. Another view T take is this:—You can't be too careful in tampering with that priceless heritage that has been handed to us by our forefathers, viz., "liberty." As one great writer at Home said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," and I maintain that moderation is the only true temperance. Why, sir. 1 can remember many years ago a noted gentleman who used to lecture on pro- [ hibition in the evening, and by the

time he was ready for bed he was blind drunk. In conclusion, in coming down in the train a fortnight ago I heard a man say he would stop smoking if he had his way, and when I had a good look at him I really believed him, because I really think he must have tried it and—awful consequences—it must have made him sick. —I am, etc., F. ELWOOD. Kaeaea. . .

(We have to notify correspondents that we cannot publish any further correspondence on this matter at present. Both parties on this question have had ample opportunity of giving their views, and there is nothing to bo gained at the present stage in reiterating what has already been published. —Editor.)