THE DRINK BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13712, 1 April 1905, Page 11

THE DRINK BILL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent “ Knowledge,” ■ being unable to reply to my arguments, has contented himself by heaving at mo a batch of statistics ancient and modern, endeavouring to prove that total abstainers are longer lived than moderate drinkers. Well, one would not think so to look at them, for, as a rule, they are anything but a robust-looking lot. Now, as his statistics are principally from semi-temper-ance institutions, the United Temperance and General Provident; the Rechabite Directory, Rechabites and Sons of Temperance, and so on, they are of little value, as they are merely so many advertisements from those institutions. The officers who make up the returns, of course, have a strong bias, and are simply so many temperance advocates. We all know what can be done by a clover manipulation of figures, and I have myself seen a return made up by a competent authority, though for the moment I cannot recall his name, showing indisputably that moderate drinkers are the longest livers, heavy drinkers next, drunkards next, and total abstainers were the shortest-lived of any. So much for figures; but “ Knowledge” is only drawing a herring across the scent. What I tried to show him, in reply to his doleful remarks about the drink bill was this, that if the drink bill is increasing and drunkenness diminishing, then we must surely be advancing in prosperity, sobriety and morality. No figure puzzles from temperance actuaries, or anybody else, can get away from such a plain deduction. We all know,that poverty and miserable surroundings are the chief causes of drunkenness, and as these gradually disappear, so drunkenness diminishes. Now, as our country has been very prosperous for some years, naturally moderate drinking has increased ; * our well-paid workers have the means and the inclination to enjoy more of the luxuries of life, and, of course, beer and wines and spirits count as a big item. On the other hand, as the surroundings of others not so well off improve, they are less likely to rush to drink for consolation. This latter class, however, form such a small proportion that they are hardly worth counting, and I assert, as I did before, that, with the exception of an infinitesimal portion, our drink bill is paid by the moderate drinkers of the colony, to whom it brings health, strength and enjoyment. - “Knowledge,” like all prohibitionists, is prepared to sacrifice everything to his favourite theory, and even patriotism becomes only a second-class sentiment. He and his friends are ever ready to belittle their own countrymen and heap insults upon them. He tells ns now, in effect, according to his Manchester statistics, that only on© recruit in ten is of the required physique to bear arms. Well, it is a wonder that Great Britain his not become a second or third-class Power. Where do we get our soldiers and sailors from now, and who is it that fights onr battles? Will “Knowledge” deny that we emerged from the South African war more respected and feared by other nations, stronger by land and sea, and altogether' in a more enviable position, from, a lighting point of view, than perhaps at any other period of our history? And was all this achieved by

dissipated, narrow-chested incapable*, or by a stalwart race of mennurtured for centuries on a moderate amount of alcohol? Why, his own statements would go to prove my theory. I presume he will not deny that the present generation of Britons do not drink as their ancestors did, and if, as he says wo arq deteriorating to such an extent that' only one recruit in ten is fit to bear arms, then the deterioration is easily accounted for. It is brought about of the lesser amount of alcohol now consumed by us. “Knowledge” says “the use of alcohol is physically wrong.” Well, that is an egotistical and pedantic statement, unsupported by any authority or argument. Over and over again in your columns and elsewhere the very highest medical authorities have been quoted showing that a moderate amount of alcohol is not only not harmful but is beneficial, and in seme eases necessary. A correspondent in your columns lately quoted the following amongst a large number of others; —Dr P. H. Pye Smith, of Guy’s Hospital, says “ wine and liquors for a large number (perhaps for most adults) when taken with meals do more good than harm. Temperance is much better than abstinence.” Professor Arthur Gamage writes: “Subject to limitations as to amount and manner of consumption, it appears to me that alcohol is a valuable constituent of the diet of man. I have on several occasions abstained from alcohol during * period of some weeks, , and have found that my working capacity was there- } by injuriously affected.” Sir -I. Burdon Sanderson, Bart., says: “I myself often experience the advantages of alcohol, and the more the older I get. I quite agree yrith you that alcohol is not a poison.” Sir M. Foster says; “The fact that alcohol, taken in a certain quantity, is obviously injurious constitutes no argument whatever against a smaller quantity being ben© ficial.” Similar opinions could be quoted by the column, but it would be unfair to trespass on your space. Of course authorities have been 'quoted contra, but they have generally been from medical men who are or have been themselves total abstainers. “ Knowledge ” says “ alcohol has not •been vouchsafed to us by a beneficent Providence; it is an artificial production.” Well, he might say the same of bread or of a hundred, other necessaries of life which are manufactured, and for which we thank. Heaven daily. Providence does not provide them in their manufactured state, but provides in each case the natural material from which they are extracted or manufactured, and endows us wiu the neces-sax-y knowledge .to produce and use them for. our enjoyment and benefit, and it is sinful and ungrateful to attempt to discard, them.—l am, etc., HOPEFUL.