MR. SHERWELL AND THE PROHIBITIONIST.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11576, 14 February 1901, Page 3

MR. SHERWELL AND THE PROHIBITIONIST.

Mr. A. Sherwell, the joint author with Mr. Rowntree of the well-known book on the working of temperance reform schemes, has written tho following letter to the Rev. F. W. Isitt, the editor of the New Zealand Prohibitionist, in answei to an article published in that paper:— Sir,— hate newspaper controversy, and have learned philosophically to accept most of the misstatements concerning my views on temperance reform ■ lhat appear from time to time in certain temperance journals. But it may relieve your mind (and illustrate once more the unwisdom of speech going before knowledge) if I say at once (1) that I am in no way responsible for the title of my article in the Australian Review of Reviews, referred to in your issue of November 24; (2) that I did not choose it, and (3) that I saw it fr- the first time when the article reached England. My own choice of a title was a thing so innocent and colourless that it could hardly have endangered my reputation for modesty, nor have called down upon my unhappy head a wholly gratuitous lecture. Seriously, is that Fort of personal comment necessary? or is it likely to add to the dignity of you* movement? For the rest, I have simply to say: First, that I accept no responsibility for your description of my attitude on the most important point referred to when you and two other members of the New Zealand Alliance did me the honour and the kindness to wait upon me after my arrival in Wellington. I should have thought it impossible that anvon° who had ever discussed the matter with me, or who had read anything that I have ever published, oi joined in publishing, could have concluded that " it is fair to say that he was at least half favourable" tt a colonial prohibition vote. I have never dhguised my belief that, while a broad measure of local*option (including thj option of public management as well as of voce) is wise and necessary, any attempt at national prohibition would, in the present stage of public opinion, be disastrous. . . Secondly, I prefer that, instead of giving your own summary of my Sydney letter—a summary which hardly puts my answer completely or accurately—you should print the letter itself. Your readers would then see that, being asked to give answers to a series of questions (still in my possession) bearing on the position of temperance affairs in the colony, fo. (as I was assured) public use, I not unnaturally objected that it would be improper for me tc interfere in the internal politics of a colony in which I was a passing visitor. . . Lastly, I will only say that I did not visit New Zealand to claim " authority" to speak for anyone but myself. In the only speech that I made in the colony I distinctly disclaimed any such "authority" or pretension. (But your recollection of that speech, Mr Editor, as was made evident by the report of it furnished to a Wellington paper at the time, and which I felt bound then privately to repudiate, was always somewhat defective.) I came to New Zealand simply to learn a few facts, and to have that pleasurable exnerience which every Englishman must have* who is privileged to visit the colony. Both objects I happily accomplished, and the übiquitous "interviewer' has found since my return that I have only good things to say of the prosperous colony and its generous-hearted people.—l am, etc., Arthur Sherwell. Thackeray Hotel, London, W.C., January 7, 1901.