BISHOP COWIE AND THE REV. W. J. WILLIAMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11202, 24 October 1899, Page 3

BISHOP COWIE AND THE REV. W. J. WILLIAMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— have been pleased to see in the course of the controversy about prohibition, j which lias been intermittently carried on in your columns, that there aro some total abstainers who do not consider themselvos justii fied in coercing their fellow citizens to adopt their practice. These persons command j my warm admiration, hut very probably they I have found that amongst Prohibitionists they ! aro regarded as even worse than the moderate drinker, who again, I am informed, is i considered in the same circles as worse than ' the drunkard. But, even so, it seems to require some hardihood of assertion to say that a total abstainer who believes that the human race would bo the better for entirely renouncing the use of alcoholic drinks is "in favour of the liquor traffic." Yet this is ! what tho Rev. W. J. Williams virtually asi sorts in a letter in which he assails the Priniato of the Anglican Church because the opinion of the latter on the liquor question does not agree with his own. For Mr. Williams says: "Tlioro are only two parties in tho contest that will culminate in the local option poll on the day of the general electionthose in favour of the liquor traffic, and those who are against it." The total abstainers, therefore, as well as all others who do not vote for prohibition, are in favour of tho liquor traffic. Let us examine tho logic of this position by the help of a simple illustration. A patient is suffering from an apparently malignant ulcer, for which some surgeons recommend the immediate resort to knife or cautery, whilst others advise reliance upon the powers of tho constitution, assisted by appropriate aids. The dispute waxes hot, and one of the advocates of heroic measures cries out: "There are only two parties in this controversy— those in favour of malignant ulcers, and those who are against them." Comment seems needless, but it may bo instructive to compare the question of drinking alcohol with the somewhat parallel case of gambling. My own opinion is that gambling is worse than drinking, being evil in itself, and not merely by its abuse; but I object to the laws, futile or hypocritical as they generally are, which aro passed or proposed with tho avowed objocfc of suppressing gambling. Now, if Mr. Williams' logic is sound, I am in favour of gambling, a conclusion which seems to me a little absurd. I content myself with pointing out the gross fallacy of the reasoning, without expressing any opinion on the morality of attacking one's opponents with such a style of argument. Mr. Williams seems to "doubt the propriety of any reference to the practice or teaching of the Founder and Head of the Christian Church, although that reference was made by an authorised overseer of a portion of that Church at a meeting of clergy and people, convened expressly for consultation upon Christian work. But Mr. Williams introduces the same "Name. . . into this discussion" in a partisan controversial letter in a newspaper. And ho introduces it only to present us again with the old and favourite fallacy that because Jesus Christ would not "sanction the present licensing system, with its horrible record, etc.," therefore he would be for calling in the policeman and the magistrate to prevent any sale of drink. But the Prohibitionist finds it unthinkable that any one who declines to vote on his side may ba taking " the stand in this matter he honestly believes Christ Himself would take." Yet such a belief does not seem extravagant when ono considers the miracle of Cana, the institution of the Supper, the personal practice of the Master, and, perhaps more than all, His constant insistence on interior reformation as contrasted with the whitewashing of sepulchres. For I believe that the wliited sepulchre is no bad emblem of what a society would be when drilled into abstinence from all tangible or visible vices by the fear of the Police Court and the gaol.— am, etc., J. Giles. Garston, Mauku, October 21, 1899.