THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4480, 23 March 1876, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

To the Editor of the Heeald. - Sir,---I crave permission to comment on the subject of Good Templarism,.. as discussed in'your leader of this day. jUthough unconnected with the Order, X heartily. sym-_ pathise with the ; objects it is supposed to aim at: generally, the suppression ©! intemperance; specially, the placing the control of the liquor traffic more directly in the hands of the people. On this-head I join issue with you. In' your opinion, legislative interference (I. supppse' prohibitory is meant) would be tyrannical, and an interference with personal liberty, &c.- Isnot all lawan interference with personal liberty ? When • Ais brought before M ti the magistrate, and ordered to do so and so or go to prison, pay so and so or go ditto, or sent to prison without alternative; whether the cause be neglect or * refusal to pay a debt, breach of one of - the numerous municipal by-laws, or any more serious offence, is it not in each and every such case an interwith the personal freedom of A? Could society exist without some restriction on the freedom of action of individuals ? Is hot society based on the principle that the personal liberty must be restrained in the interest of, and for the benefit of the community? In , ancient times, the restraining power was vested in the head of the family, termed the patriarchal system. In mediaeval times, it was vested in the chief or lord, which we ..term the, feudal system. In modern times, it is in English-speaking communities, vested in a governing body, supposed to be more or less representative ; and the tendency of the representation is continually" towards democracy: towards placing the power more directly in,the hands'of the people.' 1 1 am . not asserting * that such a course is, .of' necessity, - the best in all cases; but only mentioning the fact. This being admitted, that what is sometimes "called " the irresistible logic of events" points unmistakeably towards placing the. | deciding voice on all public questions di-- ; rectly in the hands of. the that under our form of democracy the. majority' ■are supposed to legislate through their re-* presentativ.es, how can anyone, either logi- ; •cally or consistently, challenge or dispute the right of the majority to legislate, even to the extent of prohibition on this subject as on ail others ; and if there is one subject on : which the people—the residents of any particular district—have the right to a deciding voice, surely it is on this subject—the drink traffic, the scourge of the whole community, but more especially the greatest scourge of I all to the workiug classes and to their wives ( and families, and these classes are the ma- I jority of the community. While maintaining the right (which cannot logically be disputed) of the majority on this question, not merely equally with, but far before all others in its direct personal effect on them, I am not going to assert the expediency of a bare majority, say fifty-one out of the hundred, coercing the forty-nine.. . A thing may be just and right, but of doubtful expediency. With regard to the organisation and its control, 1 cannot agree with you that it is either powerful or prudently guided. You refer to the 'circulars sent to candidates at the last general election, aud their replies. Had the organisation been powerful, as described, much more would have been heard of it at that time, and possibly some different results might have been obtained. It is understood outside that several candidates treated the circulars with contempt, and did not even display the courtesy of a formal acknowledgment; yet their elections were not in any way prejudiced. In one case, and only in one, the Templar vote turned the scale, and in that case it was against, not in favour of, an old and tried friend of the cause of temperance, the choice of the Grand Xtodge having fallen on a newly found, but more promising,. candidate, in preference to an old, tried friend of the cause. Whether this decision and the result is evidence in favour of khe prudence of the " controlling" body, I submit, is at least an open question. In closing your article, you condemn the " political action" part of the business, asserting that it will result in the introduction into the Order of " charlatans and adventurers, &c." I admit that in this, as in all other organisations, whether social, political, or religiuus, there is a danger. The wolf may enter, disguised in sheep's clothing; the ass may enter, clad in the lion's skin; but you will not condemn all organisations on. account o? the few vampires who contrive to fasten on them.? Why, then, make an exception in the case of the Templars' organisation, and condemn it beforehand, because, possibly, at some future period, improper or unprincipled persons may obtain a place in the higher offices of the Order ? Trusting to your courtesy to accept these •expressions of opinion, .however antagonistic to your own.—l am, &c,, F. C. 1 Newton, March 22, 1876.