THE TEMPERANCE PROBLEM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12429, 19 February 1901, Page 3

THE TEMPERANCE PROBLEM.

i MESSES' RO.UN!TREE AND SHERWELD i '. ON LOCAL OPTION., ■' 1)7;. I to ’iara editor. j Sir, —In the re cent series -of iariiclcs ''dehl-|/ I 'with. Rountree and'. Sherv/eU’sj S,“/Temperance,Problem and Social Rcfonft^ !! your , contributor l .“ Cantab ” has -hiardlyj given a fair sufomary'of the authori's on prohibitio/i and local option. \)7hen ths work first appeared this section <jf it wash subjected to-severe and destructive critte I cism, and in 1899 Mr Sherwell paid a visit; '»to America to investigate the fafets for him-i self. The outcome -of his visit was that! these chapters devoted to prohibition and local option were entirely withdrawn and : in tlie seventh -edition of the book they ate • replaced by a; lengthy -discus-fion. of the! . working of the State prohibit’/m and local] option laws in fte United States, Canada' < and Australasia. If " Cauuilj “ vas av, mb'. of these sweeping alteration s Ms articles do! , nob show the fact. J ;V/- i .v,J| 1 5| Chapters 111. and 1V.,/ dealing with! this part of the (question, axjk lull of .useful ind formation, a)nd when it is remembered that; the object'of the bopk is to advocate ai modified form of the Gothenburg system,] it is - not surprising that the authors con-1 tend that while both State prohibition and] local option -are a- success an rjural small towns, and suburbs, they are a fail-] ) ure in. cities andtoge towns.' . ‘ y 1 Sta te prohibition, that prohibition-im'-j posed by State,, law, is, J confined to the] States of Ncv, r Maine, Kansas,! Vermont, and North Dakota, but even jnl these there is/no «uoh ; tiling as the suppres-| sion by lawfof the use of alcoholic liquors! as beverages,., Under Federal law, anyone! ’ may import,, froml-another State, liquor for! Unsown xrie. . ' , i Local option, however, in. varying -formsil is in opeo)ation in thirty-seven States of the! Union, While in four temtories the govern-! ing autlijorities of certain -districts--have disj cretiona/Ty-powers of veto-. . This method 1 of dealing- with : the traffic is, ’of course, the] one of uYost interest, to New Zealand,,since! it is the -one that has been adopted heic.j Messrs Sherwell and Rountree give em-j : phatio testimony as to the resulte.; As tab ■ !i America as 'a whole, they/say, ‘‘The tvide ! acceptance of the principle”- as “uaques-t / tion ably significant” ; ; and also “-Thai local] Option /has justified,, itself jn tbe -Tparlicnkn / /areas to-' which it has been .applied" is,! : broadly - speakings -incontestable,' It-‘has-stimutiteii 'temperance sentiment and quiclc-j ened, prooTessivs effort until it hai - secured:: ; the total suppression of the liquor, saloon] i over wide areas; while its influence 'has! : been almost avholly free from those de-|' ) moralising effects wMch.have followed the? ‘ attempt to impose compulsory proMbition upon the cities of the prohibition States; Up to the limit of its actual therefore, the experiment of local option ip America is to be regarded as a.- decided!success.” ' / _ ■. ■//. In Massachusetts, with its"local, /option] law, of the 320 towns or townships no; fewer than 259 are under- “no license.”! These towns are for the most part small.! But in such places as Cambridge {pep.j 81,643), Somerville (pop.. 52,200), Chelsea; (pop. 51,264), Malden (pop. 29,708), New-; ton (pop. 27,590), and others, which are] practically suburbs of Boston, the success,of local option is admitted. The authors' 'say that “the general impression,..created by the experience of these is- as distinctly] favourable, and full of encouragement to) those wliq look/hope fully to-the applicationof a like policy to similar areas iu ’Great; Britain.” Of Cambridge, in particular,/ we/ are. toM that. “• the consensus of opinion an 1 Cambridge is strongly in favour of‘no ii-] cense,’;mid! the broad! results-of thei.«xpexi-} menb there unquestionably seem'to juslafyi it. J lii the poorer parts of the-city a certain amount of illegal sale takes place, and! there is also.some infringement of, the law] in connection with the druggists’ licenses./ These, however, are comporati.veiy torfiS blemishes in white is otherwise a f «uccessfu]j experiment in local prohibition-;’/ ‘ * ‘ y( v - These - quotations,' you rather a now light upon the working oij the local option laws in America. ‘ The dpi; dependent observations of Messrs and Sherwell on the subject werfe entirely( ignored by “Cantab” and in their place] we were given the observations of -a- selfJ styled “ cx-proMhitionist-’ ’on t-hh workingj of local veto in Glutha. Oii the other sid® one might quote a. multitude of investiga-l tors who are nob afraid to publish 'theiq names. Since the liquor questicn is admit-! tedly one*of great importance, could yon nothin the interests of your joitmal and-of. the public, ‘send a disinterested and unbiased commissioner to the Oluthn -to ligate the position IhorougMv and impar« I am, ete.j; ,s: 1 ' OASWAbM!'