THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11203, 25 October 1899, Page 6

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— value of the attempt mado by Dr. Giles to evade responsibility in relation to the liquor traffic may bo very simply tested. In a few weeks' timo, on tho day of the local option poll, each voter will bo supplied with a ballot paper, on which will be printed the following words:— I vote that the number of licenses existing in the district continue. I vote that tho number of licenses existing in the district bo reduced. I vote that no lioenses be granted in the district. The voters on these issues will fall practically into two classes, viz., those who are for the continuance of tho existing liquor traffic and those who are against. The difference between those who vole only for reduction and those who vote "no-license" i» one of degreo, and not of principle: they aro both opposed to tho existing order of things. It is clear, too, that tlioso who have the right to vote but do not exercise that right are practically in favour of allowing the liquor traffic to continue; they do nothing at the ballot-box to effect any change. My contention, therefore, that in the record of opinion through tho ballot-box at tho local option poll concerning the liquor traffic there aro but two parties, those in favour of the traffio and those who are opposed to it, remains unshaken. Whatever it may involve, Dr. Giles in this crisis must take his stand either on one side or tho other; there is no midway of escapo for him or anybody else. His " simple illustration" is a oonfusion of the real issue. It is a gross libel to imply, as he docs, that we hold all those who are not in favour of "no-license" as being in favour of the suffering and wrong which the liquor traffic creates. Such evils, we know, aro most bitterly deplored by many who do not agree with us concerning the best method for getting rid of them, and who, in their own way, are doing what they can to remove them. Bishop Cowie, I know, deplores these evils, and by example and procept has sought to lessen them. What I regretted was that in his official address at the Synod the Bishop used language that will be readily construed by those financially interested in the liquor trade in favour of continuing such a disastrous condition of things as that at present existing. There are "malignant ulcers" on the body politio that cannot be otherwise than an eyesore and an offenco to every man with anything less than a heart of stone. Theso " ulcers" exist in proportion to the facilities provided for the sake of strong drink. Some of us a™ simple enough to imagine that the most obvious method for getting rid of those " ulcers" is to get rid of the cause out of which they spring. Wo are encouraged in this view by the fact that in tho many hundreds of districts in whioh the facilities for the publio sale of drink havo been removed, these ulcere," in the shape of drunkenness and vice and crime, have rapidly decreased. We are really not fringtened in this connection by that terrible word " coercion," that seems to haunt Dr. Giles like a nightmaro. Wo hold that it is infinitely bettor for the body politic that the brewer and the publican should bo " coerced" from the sale of liquor than that these "malignant ulcers" should continue. As a matter of fact, "coercion" is in full force as a principle already in Auckland, in relation to the liquor traffic, for of the 32,000 peoplo in Auckland city, . all but 60 are coerced, under heavy penalties, from selling alcoholio liquors. If it is right to "eoerco" 31,940, why should it be wrong to "coerce" the remaining 60 If it be contoiided that the rights of thoso who uso strong drink are entitled to consideration, I want to know if the rights of thoso to whom tho drink brings an unmitigatod curso are not also entitled to consideration, and whether they may not fairly claim to be protected from a traffic that to thousands spells irretrievable ruin? Dr. Giles does not think it " extravagant" to claim that in the question so soon to be submitted to the votes of the people, for or against the liquor traffic, tho oxamplo of Jesus Christ would be in favour of continuing the traffic. Jesus Christ has taught us to pray: "Our Father: lead us not into temptation;" and yet, according to Dr. Giles, it is not unthinkable to imagine that if Ho were here to-day Ho would vote to placo temptation to evil of the most dangerous kind at almost every strcot corner. Does Dr. Giles really mean this? Is not tho very suggestion an insult to the most elementary conception of what Jesus Christ would do? It is true that Ho laid stress on the need of inward reformation, and denounced as whited sepulchres those who wore outwardly clean but inwardly foul. But, as I have had occasion before to remind Dr. Giles, He laid violent hands on tho wrong-doers He found desecrating the temple without waiting for any inward reformation in their case. It was a prohibition order applied at the stinging end of a, whip of cords. The town Christ denounced as'whited sepulchres were those who stood for vested interests, and who revealed tho moral rottenness that underlay their profession of superior piety by refusing to lift o finger to remove the burdens that crushed the lives of the poor and needy round about them.— am, etc., Wm. Jas. Williams. October 24, 1899.