PROHIBITION COUNCIL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIX, Issue 11554, 15 April 1898, Page 2

PROHIBITION COUNCIL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I wish to reply to some of the remarks conta’”°d in your article on the recent Prohib ion Council. You say, “It is a little cu cu o find that, while prominent speili is iave deprecated mixing up a ‘ great n;w ~i cause 5 with politics, and while the Council has formally affirmed ‘ that the Prohibition Party takes no side in politics/ the Convention has, nevertheless, resolved to pontinue the agitation for colonial option by a bare majority vote, and various other legislative changes.” Now, I cannot for the life of me see anything curious in connection with the above. For if trying to obtain the passage of certain measures constitutes the prohibitionists a political , party, then the Women’s Institute, which is agitating for equal laws for men and women, is a political institution; and those churches who are clamouring for 5n alteration of the laws relating to education in order to have the Bible read in the public schools are also a political party. Again, you say that “it will be found, when election time comes round, that the prohibitonists are a compact party.” Now, let me assure you that the prohibitionists have never yet been united at a parliamentary election. A majority of them have voted in accordance with their political views, and in my opinion they will continue to do so, notwithstanding the resolution that was passed the other day by the recent Convention to only support prohibition candidates, irrespective of their political colour. But as fully three-fourths of the prohibitionists are Liberals the Liberal candidates will always obtain a preponderance of their votes. Now, I think it will be conceded that I am as staunch a prohibitionist as there is in the colony, but I have never in my life voted for a Conservative candidate, nor will I ever do so, even if he will promise to support prohibition until he goes into fits. Neither will I ever support a candidate who calls himself a Liberal if he would refuse to give the people complete control of the liquor traffic. In fact, any person who would do so is no Liberal. Again, you say that it is a mere “ crying for the moon ”to ask for colonial option, or any change in the licensing laws while the majority of the people are not in sympathy with prohibition tenets. Now, how do you know that this is so ? It does not necessarily follow that because a large majority voted against prohibition at the last local option poll, there is not a majority against the liquor traffic being dealt with exclusively by the people. I believe there are thousands who are in favour ofthis who are utterly opposed to prohibition. But be that as it may, I contend that it is not at all requisite to obtain the wish of the majority before passing the measures that are demanded by the prohibitionists. It is not as if they were clamouring for a prohibitory law. They ‘have again and again emphatically declared that they would not have a prohibitory law on any account. Therefore, all that they are asking for at the hands of the Legislature is sufficient machinery to enable the feeling of the people to be properly tested every three years, with respect to the liquor traffic. Surely this can do no one any harm, as the law will remain inoperative until the majority is obtained that is required to carry prohibition. In fact, it is simply the adoption of the principle ’of the referendum, and I think you have always contended for that.—l am, &0., H. SEED, Carleton.