PROHIBITION.
TO THE EDITOE. ' Sir,—lt is idle for " Cantab" <to deny that he treated the question of prohibition very unfairly, as I can adduce abundant, evidence, from his articles to -prove that ho did) so, but the following passage will suffice:—"The whole trend of the evidence only -proves this much, that prohibition prohibits where no one wants intoxicating liouors, but nowhere else." Now, he knew ' perfectly'well that this statement,was utterly af variance with, facts. Why, then, did he make at ? Did he wish your readers to believe, that ho was expressing the opinion of Messrs Boun.tree and Sherwell.' These gentlemen most emphatically declare that it is incontestable that " no license," lias bceen a great success under local option in small towns and extensive rural areas, in both- Canada and the | United States. Again, " Cantab" says that, 'the arrests for drunkenness in Cambridge (Mass.), increased from 10.19 per 1000 D in 1389 to 27.40 per 1000 in 1893. I would remind "Cantab" that it is a long. time 'since then. However, we may rest assured that the local option law* is well enforced there now, for he must know that Mr Sherwell would not say it was, if it were ■hot. And the law must have been well enforced ia Cambridge for several years at least, for tho Rev Dr E. Abbot, rector of St James's, Cambridge, stated, when he paid a visit to Christchurch about two years ago, that "lift believed that Cambridge, °en the' question of local option, would never go back. The increased savings of the people, the greater value of properties, the decrease of crime, and the enhanced safety of women and children, made it impossible for any impartial man to'doubt that Cambridge had immensely benefited by the abolition of hcenses. I mav say, for the benefit of some cf your readers, that an absolute majority of the votes cast carries "no license," and the local ;op'tion poll takes place annually. Therefore, I submit that if the local option law can be well enforced under such conditions in a, town of this size, surely it could ' be enforced here, provided we had a Government who, had no sympathy with the " trade" a Government desirous of promoting the. well-being of the people, j Dr Abbot attributes, very largely, the sue- \ cess in Cambridge of "no license" to the ministers of religion. All the Catholic priests, and all the Angl-.ca-n and Dissent- j ing ministers sink their differences on other matters, and earnestly engage in the' en- j counter against the powers of darkne-s and sin, which takes place o.nnuailv in.cornier-- , tion with the local option pad. If all the ; priests and all the other ministers in. lln.s ; colony would do the sum:? as those pnetis | -and ministers 'do, the liquor traffic would j very soon be removed from cur midst.- I ! am, etc., „ „„„.„ ! il. &ImyD.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/LT19010212.2.64
Bibliographic details
Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12423, 12 February 1901, Page 6
Word Count
477PROHIBITION. Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12423, 12 February 1901, Page 6
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.