NATIONAL PROHIBITION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15557, 6 March 1911, Page 9

NATIONAL PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In your issue of March 4 you indicate certain weaknesses in the logic of Professor Saint-end's pamphlet, “ Prohibition : a Blunder.” 1 have perused a local reprint of the same, and I am impelled to the conclusion that it is nothing but a polished rehash of tho long exploded theories and fictions which have been redressed and refurnished during every anti-liquor campaign for the last twenty years, in order to bolster up a cruelly destructive liquor trade. The pamphlet, which lias nothing now or fresh in it, is an attempt to prove that prohibition is a serious blunder, but tile obvious blunder about it is that a "Professor of Moral and Mental Philosophy ” should lend bis honoured name to such a puerile production. The very fact that, whilst he says (us you jMiint out) that lie is not prepared to discuss tho question of local option and no-license, and that he is concerned only in the question of national prohibition, lie yot bogs tho

question by declaring that “ if citizens believe in national prohibition, and vote for 110-license, they are really contributing their aid to rivet shackles on their own bodies,” etc., surely indicates that he is profoundly ignorant of the very rudiments of tho subject upon which he prolessos to enlighten others, or that lie is seeking to evade tho real point at issue. If tho Professor feels that he is honestly justified in using such an argument as that above-mentioned, then every thorough prohibitionist is strongly entitled to nffrin “ that, judging noheonse by its good results, and the liquor traffic by its bad results, as a tree is judged by its fruits, any citizen who believes in local no-license -and yet will not vote national prohibition, is really guilty of aiding and abetting tho worst national drunkard-and-ci'inie-creating business in this dominion.” Alter all is said and done, what the average man wants to know is: “ Which is the more beneficial to the continuity at large—the presence or tho absence of the liquor trafficr” 14c. desires modern facts light up-to-date, and not ancient philosophies and obsolete theories, however elaboratedly worded tho latter may be. Now what are chief facts anent the prohibition of the liquor traffic?—(L) That prohibition at its worst is far better than regulation at its Lest; (2) whenever honestly tried it has proved in every righteous respect very beneficial; (3) in the United States prohibition laws liavo been in force for over sixty years, and have been tried under many different and adverse circumstances. In some places they have been well enforced, and in others—mainly large cities with their corrupt officials—scarcely enforced at all. Blit in all cases thoso laws have reduced drinking, crime, poverty and misery.” As “Collier’s Weekly” remarked on November 2, 1907, “ where public opinion is strong, prohibition is sufficiently possible to mean an immeasurable advance in the prosperity, virtue and happiness of the race.” (4) If prohibition is the thraldom Professor Salniond would have us believe, how is it that tho principlo lias mudo such rapid progress in America as is shown by the following figures?:—‘ In the year 1870, about three and a half million people were living in dry areas; in 1880, seven millions, nr about 14 per cent; in 1890, eleven millions, or 18 per cent; in 1900, eighteen millions, or 25 per cent; in 1910 over forty million people in 13,000 communities, embracing about threefourths of the territory, were enjoying the “shackles” of prohibition. Why has tho prohibitory principlo become so popular in America? Because fifty years’ experience has proved that no law lias, yet been found so effective as prohibition to destroy the liquor traffic and all jts evils.—l urn, etc.,