PROHIBITION: A REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14629, 15 March 1911, Page 9

PROHIBITION: A REFORM.

REVIEW OF PROF. SALMOND'S PAMPHLET. :c, (''_ . BY P. S. SMALLFIELD. 'WM^fes 'general public are greatly indebted • to Professor Salmond for the publication of his pamphlet, and the citizens of Auckr ,j ' land are equally indebted to the New ggALAND Herald for the lengthy notice f. of the pamphlet in Saturday's number. Nothing but good can arise from a full 11 and free discussion of any important social question. "Truth is mighty, and will •prevail'" So sure are the prohibition ptaty of their own ground that, they wel- •;*' come with acclaim the appearance of a controversial work like that of Prof. Saljnond's. They believe, and rightly so, in my opinion, that the publication of such II a work, by arousing interest in and causing discussion of the question at issue, ; - •will inevitably increase the number of votes for Prohibition, inasmuch as a fair «nd impartial examination of the arguments for each side will assure voters of ■.'• the strength of the claim for Prohibition, and the weakness of that for continuance. I shall endeavour to advance the conV.', troversy a step by a brief review of the */; professor's pamphlet. I feel at a disad- .'{■\ vantage in attempting to traverse, in a short newspaper article, the arguments sot

forth in a pamphlet containing 68 pages, and I must ask readers of the Herald to ' recognise the limitations under which I write. With a view to greater effective■;*^i':C ness I shall freely avail myself of the material, and even the words, of a reply ■ * to the pamphlet, written by Mr. Alex. S. c|*' Adams in the Otago Witness. ! The arguments presented by Dr. Salr ■ mond are practically worn out. They are ': mainly those current in the later decades of last century. The pamphlet echoes tho voices of the past. The antiquated objections, based upon interpretations of Scripture, the political principles of the "lais sez-faire" school, the wholesale condemnation of sumptuary, laws, the bogey of the seven devils that will infallibly take pos- < session of a community if drink be ban- „ ished . from it; the amazing confusion >;,!between the rights and duties of society ~ jnd the rights and duties of the individual citizen; the "personal liberty" argu- '. *ments: the anarchist contention that the .--prohibition law will not be obeyed; the , contempt for recent inquiry and conclusions of eminent scientists, sociologists, f;f;and panologists, with world-wide reputations; the depreciation of statistics, all _. these are there, and nothing more. Arguments from the Bible. The professor makes a strong point of - references in the Bible to the use of wine. Now, nothing is clearer than the . fact that the word " wine" in the Old :, and New Testament is not, and cannot be, a generic term for all modern alcoholic beverages; and it is a grave misuso of ,! " terms so to present it. The art of die- ! tillation was not known until centuries after the sacred records were closed. A large part of the so-called wines of to-day are manufactured by the aid of chemicals. To argue from the use of wine in Bible I times in favour of the use of modern alcoholic drinks is to assume a conclusion ■ upon a very unsound major premiss. There is a whole literature on this subject, with which Prof. Salmond seems to be unac- " quainted. Of course anyone referring to too Old Testament- for support for the use of wine, should in all fairness admit the weight of the numerous Bible warnings against the use of wine and strong drink. Prof. Salmond makes capital out " of the references to the miracle at Cana, and to the cup at the Lord's Supper. Here t i again he is taking for granted a point . which most thoughtful men consider a very debatable one. Certainly on Prof. , Salmond's party rests the burden of proof thai, the wine of Cana was intoxicating, 'and that the "cup" was tilled with an: r '*"i;« intoxicating " fruit of the vine" at. a time fv||»wheri the Hebrews were commanded to J exclude all leaven out of their houses. |j But why labour this phase of the ques- ", tion ? The ecclesiastics of 70 years ago < \ ' justified slavery in their own day from the Bible, by just such reasoning as that |<: > used by Prof. Salmond in favour of strong drink; yet no New Zealander would now declare himself a defender of slavery. '* The learned doctor is, however, not ' content with drawing authority from the Bible for the use of alcoholic beverages. - According to his theory prohibition in i itself is a pernicious thing, and therefore ' the Church of Christ ought to hold itself '. aloof from all temperance propaganda. 'Here he differs from Dr. Benson, the late Archbishop of Canterbury, who said : "The contest with intemperance is, in one way, the particular work of the present day of the Church of Christ; for, unless it is done, very little else can lastingly be done." Cardinal Manning expressed the mind of the great teachers of hie Church when he said : "The chief bar to the working of the Holy Spirit in the souls , . of men is intoxicating drink." , "' Who Votes Prohibition. , The professor views with dismay the possible effects of the passing of prohi- ',' bition. He aasumes that there are few .;. abstainers, and still fewer prohibitionists amongst the professional classes, such as lawyers,. doctors, professors, lecturers, , judges and magistrates; and he ask* the \ question, "Who, then, record their votes ' for no-license?" His own answer is, • " "The issue must be largely determined by the votes of women and young persons," and, he continues, "I am not going to question either their right to vote or \ ,their fitness; but they might seriously .consider if it can be wise and good to . ' force such measures upon the reluctant Manhood of the country, who constitute jits, very life and strength? It is not easy for grown men to remain reverent, ', law-abiding citizens under pressure of harsh laws, which they much dislike. I They will bear much and long, but there ■ '■'&:» limit, and provocation may be given ■to dangerous rebellion." Several im- , portant questions are opened up here. glp||MW'-extract throws valuable light upon Professor Salmond's point of view. "Women and young persons voting to control lawyers, doctors, professors!" ' "Men would never pass such a measure!" '.ff. Unhappily for the professor, prohibition "has already been voted into legal effect by many millions of men in Norway, }^o|;'■Sweden," United States of America, and other countries, where women have not 1 exercised any vote. But this is, no doubt, very shocking to a conservative ~; M ind. If Professor Salmond likes to take the trouble to inquire, be will find g|»:l)«t«tbe brain and muscle of this Dominion is. By a large majority, in favour 'of the abolition of the liquor traffic. Surely he is not so autocratic as to deny to the' majority the right to a reform, "even if the reform presses hardly upon the private habits of certain doctors, lawyers, and professors. As for the hint :- °f ft* dangerous rebellion on the part of '■> £' class already greatly privileged in the jWy of social position and good income, does he seriously believe that any section > * of Britishers, after all these centuries of rtruijgle for constitutional freedom, are ;, ' . likely to endeavour to enforce, by rebel- ; - , , lion, the rule of tho minority over the , .Majority? Lawyers, doctors, and pro-. ™%fefWsors are not at all likely to besmirch M&JiwW'r honour, and risk the loss of fame l ,'!:• ; * n d fortune, for a few glasses of intoxicat- ) ing liquor. ,', i Foundation Principles. < Professor Salmond has really failed to grasp the foundation principles of the prohibition movement. The right of a •State to protect itself and its members from the injury and loss caused by any or traffic, , and to make, and enlllSfi^rc 6 * laws to that end, lies at the foundation of society. To deny it is to threaten the very existence of law and ffiSi^ro«« Professor Salmond is not content BKlL^t n ¥ attempting to demonstrate that profflmm hibition '• is a blunder, he endeavours to IWffiE^°- it M a crime against society. ProIli'S hibitionists, on the other hand, take a Jane and constitutional view of the mat||«?|?W. ,They claim that the trade in alIfllvli'it " c beverages is one of the most hurtllPts ful social agencies in existence; that it ißbfe- ■■;■'• ■ /"• ""•■. ■"

is / signally injurious to the Stat© in loss of industry, in increase of crime, disease, idleness, poverty, insanity, domestic misery, in destruction of child life, m stunted and weakened manhood that it imposes cruel hardships upon women and children; and that the obvious course to take is to purge the State of this evil thing. This decision shows common sense. Professor Salmond, on the other hand, would allow the State to continue to groan under this fearful burden, lest certain doctors, lawyers, and professors should be deprived of those beverages to which he inserts they are so selfishly inclined. That the liquor traffic is of all causes, the most potent cause of crime, misery, and destitution has been so amply and frequently demonstrated by the testimony of highly placed and influential lawyers, doctors, and professors, that no further demonstration is required here.

Medical Opinion. Dr. Salmond deprecates the use of the term "an irritant narcotic poison" as applied to wine, and he urges that wine adds to the joys and comforts of life. If we are to judge of a tree by its fruits, and Dr. Salmond will admit that wo are required by high, authority to do so, the fruits of the liquor tree condemn the tree, root, stem, and branch. This is the general opinion concerning liquor, based upon general observation. It is confirmed by the deliberate judgment, of eminent medical experts such as Sir Victor Horsley, Sir Frederick Treves, Dr. Andrew Clarke, Sir B. W. Richardson; and their judgment is upheld by the testimony of thousands of other medical men. These leaders in the medical world certainly term alcohol "a narcotic poison," "a curiously insidious poison," and one of them states that "there is no dose of alcohol too small to be harmful." Most men would bow to Professor Salmond's judgment should he write upon the subject of mental and moral philosophy; but when it comes to a question of the nature and effects of a drug, most men would prefer to be guided by high medical authority.

The Winning Side. So prohibition is a blunder! But all great reforms were blunders once. The abolition of slavery was a blunder, and the reform met with the fiercest opposition. The locomotive, the spinning machine, the sewing machine were blunders. The Reform Bill, woman franchise and local option were blunders in their turn. Even chloroform was a blunder once, and the Bible was freely quoted in the fulminations agaipst its use. Since every step in reform has been accentuated by a shriek of protest, we cannot hope to live in quieter times in this 20th century. But whilst Professor Salmond is endeavouring to stay the progress of reform, and to scothe the excited and anxious with the advice to let well alone, and with- the consoling prediction that all will come right in the end, prohibitionists are working with heart, energy, brains, and money, and are doing so cheerfully and confidently, undismayed by the opposition aroused by vested interests, vicious appetites or learned apologies, for they know that theirs is the winning side.

Professor Salmond's pamphlet is written in a most charming and interesting style, and should, by its very readableness, do a great deal to advance the prohibition movement.