Rev. L. M. Isitt's Mission.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 214, 12 November 1896, Page 5

Rev. L. M. Isitt's Mission.

_ <> LIQUOR VERSUS LABOR. There was a large attendance at the Rev. L. M. Isitt's meeting on Tuesday night, over which the Mayor, (Mr D. L. Poppelwell) presided. Tho lecturer said that the difference between hiß meetings, and those held by Mr J. D. Sievwright was in the fact that at the latter's— and his side was'supposed to possess all the facts and logic — questions were permitted, but no discussion. At his (the speaker's) meetings — and his side was supposed to havo all tho fanaticism and exaggeration—questions were invited and they were only too glad to get full discussion. Mr Sievwright had said that he would be glad to shake hands with him (the speaker) but he would not debate with him as that was not his business. That was an all-significant position to take up. If he (the speaker) oould show them that a publican in this or any other district was a thoroughly worthless creature and a scamp then they surely would agree that he had made out his case. If not then jyhy did some of them cheer when Mr Sievwright had said that a parson had partaken, ot^plum wine. He occupied no coward's castle and invited the fullest discussion on any of bis statements. If they found him guilty of any exaggeration, let them stand up and tell him so and not wait till he had gone away, and then write anony-. mous letters to the papers about him. He asked them for fair play and twitted them with the impossibility of finding him guilty of uttering an untrue statement. Reverting to the subject of his address, Mr Isitt said that if he thought that the public houses and drinking bars aided the working man in any way — lengthened his life, lightened his burdens, or increased his happiness, he would fight as earnestly for their retention as he now fought for their abolition. The working classes never had a greater enemy than John Barleycorn — no one thing had done more to grind them dowa and impoverish them, and to hinder their progress than the drink. The testimony of the leaders of the labor cause in Britain was sufficient to show this, as in manifestoes issued at different times, they had characterised drink as the dry rot of labor, and advised the working men to have nothing to do with publicans and brewers, as when they gave £5 to the funds of their labor organisations, they were throwing a sprat to catoh a mackerel. The hardest idea of all to knock out of peoples' head 3 was that beer was an aid to work. Men said that it was all right for a parson to drink tea and buttermilk,' but they must have something with some " body " in it, therefore they chose beer or stout.. He had thrown out a challenge to the managed of a Christchurch brewery and had undertaken to prove that there was no more real nourishment in a quart of the best stout' than there was in as much oatmeal as would cover a five shilling piece. There was absolutely no nourishment in the stuff, and yet, _what a price they paid for it ? He defied any man who held that beer was necessary to keep up health and lengthen life to mention any life assurance company in the world that would insure the life of a moderate drinker at a lower premium and give him higher bonuses than a teetotaller. He (the speaker) could tell them of twenty companies who insured the lives of teetotallers at lower premiums and gave them more bonuses than to moderate drinkers. These companies did not run their business on fads r thoy arranged things on facts and conducted their affairs on shrewd business principles. Alcohol was a stitnulant ; it did not give strength but drew upon the supplies of strength. They did not take it for the strength that was in it, but for tho alcohol, and wanted the exhiliration the drug produced. He did not want to " rob the wroking man of his beer " — he wanted the working man tp rob himself of it, so that he might be all the richer for it. It had been said the Prohibition movement bad been set on foot by the rich men with cellars of their own, who would be able to get their liquor whatever happened. Ho could tell them that there ware not mvny of this sort in the movement — it was identified 'chiefly with the working classes. Even then theydid not ask to decide the question. They^ply wanted the Government tc give tha pTople power to say whether they would have the traffic or not. They heard a good deal about co-operative labor in these times, and no doubt many were grateful to the Government for providing work for so many otherwise unemployed men. If the working men would only turn resolutely away from the public houses they would not need to go cap in hand to the Government for work. In 10 years, at the lowest computation, £00,000 was spanfc in Gore on alcohol, and at least two thirds of this was provided by the working classes. Now if they funded that sum they could lay hold of any going industrial concern in tho country and have it as their own, instead of having nothing whatever save poverty and wretchedness to show for the yearly expenditure on drink. He did not care whether they^ were Conservatives or Liberals, they would* know that the greatest political menace to the colony was its drinking bars. A drunken father, having equal voting power to the most industrious artisan, nearly always exerted a pernicious influence over his sons, and often when these grew up to be old enough to make use of their rights of citizenship their, votes could be bought with a quart of beer. If that were not so, then why did the publican's give away so much free beer at election times? That which had undermined the political fabric of New York and threatened England — the influence of liquor bars — threatened New Zealand also. It was the deadliest menace to good Government they could have. If they were goiug to champion the liquor bars at the coming election they would sow to the wind and reap a whirlwind. There was, no more foolish thing a man could do than to spend his money in this fashion to enrich others. Not only did it impoverish him, but it threatened the purity of his country's politics and worked in every way contrary to that which was good. It had been argued that if they closed down upon the liquor bars they would throw a lot of men out of employment and abolish a useful industry. No more absurd idea could exist. Suppose they had £1,000,000 invested in the liquor business ; it only employed one-ninth the amount of labor required to run any other industry, and if they closed down upon them they would stop the annual wasting of £2,000,000 and put it into other channels of commerce which would mean that legitimate industries and trades would " boom," and nine times the labor unused by the liquor business closing down, would be employed at once as a result. Mr Sievwright had waxed eloquent before them on the liberty of the subject, but had not the wive 3 and children of the drink victims any liberties to be recognised or protected ? The point the Prohibitionists sought to emphasise was thai scores of people who did not touch liquor had to suffer for one who did. He claimed that they had to pay additional rates and taxes, and run all sorts of risks because these drinking bars existed. Some of them might say this was absurd, but half the community held that the contention . he stated was correct Sir Robert. Stout held it to be so, and Sir Hirry Atkinson thought so. There was a division of opinion on the subject, therefore they claimed the right to decide the question at the ballot box. If they were offered State PrcSribiUon to-morrow they would not take it, and^Vould fight against it. They wanted National Prohibition by the voice of the people, as they knew that any attempt to force legislation on the people in advance of public opinion would end in disaster. If the drinking bars were licensed again they would do the same sort of work that they had done for the past three years. If the people believed they had left a trail of blessedness behind them, let them vote "license " ; he would not quarrel with them. The only way they oould regulate the business was to take out of alcohol the power of creating an appetite for itself or else regulating the weakness of those who went down before it. Instead of drunkenness decreasing in Britain as they had thought, it had increasrd during the last 30 years, aud it was appalling to think that drink was fastening its hold firmer than ever upon her. Mr Sievwright had told them that New Zealand was one of the most sober countries in the world — so it was, but who had they to thank for that ? why the miserable fanatics and exaggerators he never tired of condemning. If they believed that drink had helped on the labour cause ; had made men happy, their homes happy and hid added safety to their surroundings, then they should vote license, but if they believed that it was labor's greatest foe, mankind's worst enemy, and the greatest menace to our wellbting as a community, then they should vote for " no license." Only one question was asked, that being a query . whether any part of the collection should be taken from men in the liquor trade, and whether Mr Isitt felt ' any

conscientious scruple about taking their money. Mr Isitt replied that if a liquorman wanted half a dozen reserved seat tickets he would give them to him, and if he put a shilling in the plate he would give it to him back. It • was not the men he was fighting ;it was their I trade. He knew scores of decent fellows iv the business, but it would be inconsistent for him to take their money, and then pitch into ■ thoir trade. i A vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.