PROHIBITION AND POVERTY

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 16060, 15 October 1912, Page 4

PROHIBITION AND POVERTY

TO THE IDITOB. Sir, —With your permission, I would like to correct soveral absurd, fallacies which, appeared in your " Wide Awake'' correspondent's recent letter. They are fair samples of the many misstatements which Prohibitionists have frequently to contend against. For instance, "Wido Awake" boldly declared that tho Prohibitionists' organisers' dogma, " that 75 per cent of all poverty is due to drink," implies that 75 per cent of the working class are drunkards. Tin's assertion is a most glaring exaggeration, and 1 dofy "Wide Awake" to provo that any Prohibitionist over said or implied any such thing. What Mr Nichclls did say was that " experts in pauperism say that this class (excessive drinkers, not working class) provides about 70 to 75 per cent of • all pauperism." Later on Mr Nicholls asked: "Why do tho rich and middle classes drink and become drink slaves in just aboiit tho same proportion as tho workers if escessivo drinking is the result of trying to drown then- misery?'' About a year siiico the writer road where an English professor stated "that of all the' hundreds of students who passed through British .Universities, only a small percentage were ever heard of again." Why? One reason is that a largo proportion of them become habitual drinkers (not necessarily drunkards) thus imperilling their mental and social status and prospects. Some time ago a London firm advertised for twelve sandwich men. Among the many applicants was one whose general appearance was so much against him that the manager, not satisfied with the answers to His inquiries, spoke in French to the sub-manager, when the applicant showed signs tliat he understood tho conversation. Further inquiries proved that the man also knew Latin, Greek and Spanish. Then the applicant volunteered to find in two hours eleven others equal with himself in linguistic ability; which offer being accepted, ho returned with the eleven other exUniversity students, whose downfall in every instance, was attributed to drinking habits. But even supposing that about 75 per cent of drink-caused poverty (attested by highest authorities) did originate among the working class, surely that does not by any means imply that 75 per cent of that class are drunkards. In this respect it is very difficult to estimate the percentage, hut seeing that it is usually the breadwinner only that drinks, it is probable that throe-fourths of the poverty is caused by only some 15 to 20 per cent of the working class. Fo> instance, aro there not hundreds of ruses in this city where the drinking habits of one or both parents keep a family of half a dozen or moro comparatively poor and handicapped moro or less for life, although in disgust they may all become total abstainers? I can recall several large families which never had a.fair chance in life because of parental self-indulgence in liquor. Let me assure "Wide Awake" that it is the liquor traffic, not prohibition, that is ono of the stumining-blocks m the path of social justice; and that the total abolition of the trade is the only suro curt* for many of the social evils which already afflict this dominion. And that stumbling-block would long a/ro have been removed were it not for tho hypocrisy of liquor-panderm? politicians.—l am, etc., *ATO THE EDITOTI.

Sir,—Mr F. W. Burke and "Wide Awake" both again assail my position in regard to tho above, though Mr Burke's own letters have already amply proved and now prove again that ho and I are writing about totally different things and that their position in regard to my statements can only be maintained by persistently refusing to understand plain English. I said, in offset, in ono of my letters, and repeat now, that if the description of poverty bo altered from mine, i.e., those who are.receiving relief, to Mr Burke's, i.e., those that are poor and oppressed by economic conditions but who yet mainly manage to struggle along somehow without accepting relief, then all Mr Burke's contentions are right. For poverty caused by inferior pay, which causes the receivers to be continually right on the edge of calamity and never able to save worth speaking about, there is no cure but tho economic cure, but for poverty, socalled, where men or families could easily save 10s to £1 a week or more, and instead waste it and ruin their health in the process, no improvement in economic conditions will be any cure or even much help. Mr Burke accuses me of being pharieaically blind in refusing to see the : point that I have already stated I do see. As already shown, I can see his point plainly enough, and have always acknowledged it as correct. 1 also "largely agree with his contention that bad housing in slums drives many men and women to drink, but refuse to admit that in New Zealand this is. in any large degree, the cause of drinking. He refuses to see my point, howeicr, becauso he refuses to allow that there is a vital difference between the poverty that is not receiving relief and tho poverty that is receiving relief. While it is true, as Mr Burke says, that one is often only a little more extreme case of the same thing than the other,.yet the poverty that is receiving relief is that alone which 1 have spoken of aa poverty or pauperism It is 75 per cent of this class that is duo to drink, and it is grossly absurd and silly of " Wide Awake to say that in saying this I accuse <o per cent of the workers of being drunkards. The workers as a class are fully as sober, perhaps more sober, than either the middle or upper classes. Let us suppose that ten families in a thousand are receiving relief. What I claim is that seven of those ten case.-, will be through drink. Let Vide \wake" rub his eyes and look at that and ask himself if he was really so " wide awake " after all when ho made such a silly statement. As I "aye said many times, economic P<» ,c ™£ must have an economic cure, ana Uotl grant that it may come soon. lho main benefit of total abstinence or total prohibition to tho worker is that he will then use what he does get to i his own greater advantage and not ! waste it. Finally, Mr Burke says that I the land speculator will get all the I advantage from national prohibition. j The tendency ia always for the land I speculator to reap a good deal of the ; advantage following increased prosi perity. I am not going to mix up politics with prohibition, but would take 'care if I were in Parliament, eo far i as mv influence went, that the land i speculator'did not reap the main bene- | fit of the prosperity that will follow urohibition. —I am, etc., | P romulUol G b. NICHOLLS.