PROHIBITION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13783, 23 June 1905, Page 6

PROHIBITION.

“FAILURES AND FALLACIES.” .. ADDRESS BY MR H. M. STEWART. - ‘ The Woolston Oddfellows’ Hall was filled with people last evening when Mr H. M. Stewart, of Dunedin, gave 8 n address on “The Failures and Fallacies of Prohibition.” The audience . comprised friends and opponents of no-' j , license, who exchanged ejaculations at •• times, but there was no remarkable up- • roar except upon one occasion, when a lection of the hearers grew impatient - at the length of time occupied by an ’ asker of questions. The Mayor of the ' ’ I borough, Mr J. Richardson, occupied -• the chair. In. taking that office, he . 1 said, he did not wish to he identified I with any opinions that might be ex- . pressed. • - , - Mr Stewart said that there were two extreme sections of the community on the subject of the liquor traffic, those | financially interested and those dia- ! metrically opposed, but until the great majority of the people, the moderate party, were taken into oon--1 Bideration, he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that.no Solution of this problem would be lasting or satisfactory. The long-standing and . | dqpp-rooted habits of the people could ■ not be eradicated either with a stroke of the pen or by Act of Parliament. * • This habit had grown upon the people, and. of course, like other habits, was liable to excesses, and from these excesses came whatever evil there was in connection with the habit. In ordor to remedy the evils organisations had been formed by individuals with the purpose of eradicating the habit ■ altogether] He had no quarrel with voluntary organisations such as Bands of Hope, Sons and Daughters of Temperance, Good Templars, Rechabites, . and institutions of that class. Father Hays had just as much right to preach total abstinence as Roman Catholicism, * and voluntary organisations had a similar privilege, but it was when an or- , '' ganisation laid . aside the voluntary principle and compelled him to live in accordance with its rule, to abstain from what it termed an evil, that he ■ parted company. The organisation to which he alluded was the prohibition ■ party, better known as the no-license party. It was endeavouring, by legis- • ration, to force upon him a habit of life that might bo obnoxious to him >.nd not in accordance with his view of life. The prohibition party had done more by its abusive methods and in- ; consistency to prevent practical reform " tin the people’s drinking habits than all the good which the voluntary organisations had done. That inconsistency had been most apv, (parent in the opposition to the passing of clause 9 in the recent Liquor Bill. It would hare been thought that if any . . clause in the Bill would have been acv f peptable to those who looked upon dnnk as an evil' per so, it, . ehould have been clause 9, wKich stipulated that in any district where No-license was carried there Should be ; no" liquor.; That was the logical ’ conclusion to the efforts : of ■ prohibitionists.' Yet-the prohibitionists were the • only- party throughout the colony that had opposed clause 9. The party said that the clause was undemo- • cratic,: that it violated the; privacy of the home, because lit was included in the clause that the authorities would have the. right to search a-house'when' .they had good grounds for suspecting that the occupier was violating - the law. But the authorities coiild ;do that i suspected that a .resident had . liquor .in-his honie than he, with \?\ fils family, was likely to consume they had the right-to enter and search that 1 home. The speaker then quoted pas- ■ sages from the prohibition Bill introduced by Mr T. E. Taylor in July, 1899, hub, he added, , when that Bill that violated the democratic principle had been ibrought forward not' one word had been raised against l it by . prohibitionists. "Wby had. rney. not sent letters to members of j Parliament" threatening them if they supported the Bill,." as they had done when clause 9 of the recent’ Bill; embodying similar provisions," had been before the House? This was the point of the prohibltion- ■ ist-ff logic: that while it was' wrong, something amounting to moral delinquency to. sell liquor, the best that could he manufactured, it ‘ was quite right and proper to make and give away a hogshead of the very worst stuff that could be produced. It was in the sale of tne liquor and not in the use of it that their opposition lay. He mentioned a statement made by the Rev L. M. Isitt concerning the increase of drunkenness among women in Great Britain, and .said that if there was any effective remedy against this evil jt was the open bar, for the great majority would not face the open bar. Yet the Rev L. M. Isitt came here to tell the people how to teach women to drink. It was a strange thing that Mr Isitt always left a country when his services were most needed. When he had left the colony five years previous- . ly he had said that the drinking habit had been growing considerably, a'nd ho ; had shaken the dust off his feet for the , Old Country, where the shekels were as bright and probably more ■ numor--1 ous. ; If he had been logical, should he not have stopped here ? If the drinking habit had been growing re- ■ 1 cently in the Old Country, should he I not have stopped there? If the prohibition movement was rfew, continued Mr Stewart, ho could forgive the extravagant statements made about it, ; but it had been in existence before his time. Prohibition had been tried in 1 America in 1841, and had been in continuous existence in Vermont for over fifty years. With short spells it had . been in Maine for nearly sixty years. A wave of prohibition had swept America about fifty years ago; seventeen States had then carried prohibition, but only throe had kept it. The 1 Americans knew, if they had a good thing, how to keep it, but they had" not kept prohibition. It had had a fair trial m America, and the people had found it wanting. The speaker then " submitted passages from the book of Messrs Eowntree /and Sherwell, temper-

ance reformers. Taking the prohibition States of lowa, Kansas and Maine for tho period 1833 to 1893, they had given the average population of the principal cities as 29,000, with the arrests for all offences as 51 par 1000, including drunkenness 22 per 1000. In • the nonprohibition States of Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan, with cities averaging 109,237, the total arrests had been 37 per 1000, including 13 for drunkenness. In the matter of thrift and lunacy the figures had been equal. Messrs Rowntres and Shorwoll bad made a statement that they ha-d got their figures from official records. Tho Bishop of Vermont, writing to a person in New Zealand who had asked for information, had stated that he had no hesitation in saying that prohibition did not prohibit. It-might bo effective in small places, but in large places it was a hideous failure. Not long a,to there had boon a discussion as to which was the most drunken city in America. Portland or Bangor, the two chief places in Maine, a prohibition State. Tho speaker next. touched upon the economic aspect of prohibition, and asked what tho people -whoso living depended on the tea, tobacco- and jewellery trades would be doing if people decided to do without these luxuries. It could bo said at once that it was not because a thing was not actually necessary that people should give it up. The economic aspect of the question would not do ; it would not hold water. What had prohibition dons for the people of New Zealand? He bad seen more drunkenness at Milton during the no-licenso term than he bad seen before. No-license induced an increase of sly grog-selling, drove drunkenness underground, into the home, and raised an army of the most despicable creatures that over walked on the earth, spies and informers. He concluded by saying tliat he was not there to dictate, but ho would ask the people to got all tho information they could on tho (subject before giving a vote that would take a man’s living away, and do themselves no good. The Rev T. Fee, of Rangiora, asked a large number of questions, raising matter controverting Mr Stewart’s statements, and inquired whether , the visitor’s engagements would permit him to debate the liquor question with him on the following night in the same hall. Mr Stewart replied that he had another engagement, but he would communicate with Mr Fee later, and would discuss the subject in any hall which that gentleman liked. Mr F. Yates also put questions, and asked leave to quote statistics issued by one of the United States GovernmentDepartments, rebutting Mr Stewart’s statements. “This is my meeting,” replied Mr Stewart. “If he wishes to. quote figures lot him take the hall and pay for it.” Mr Yates: “Would, the lecturer be prepared to stay half an hour if I pay for the hall and take tho platform? Mr Stewart declined the invitation.