LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18292, 8 January 1923, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

SHELLY BEACH BATHS. Sir.—-An article in Saturday's Herald dealing -with the. public baths, touched upon the lack of proper accommodation at Shelly Beach baths. As a constant patron of this bathing place, I know that adequate accommodation is indeed lacking. There is another matter which requires attention, and that is that there should be a roof over the .men's dressing quarters. As things are, the whole of the men's quarters are open to the -view of any ladies who are on the grandstand. The necessary alteration could .be carried out at very little, cost. Ponsonby. BISHOP LISTON'S POLITICS. Sir, — very large rfumber of Catholics have to thank "Senex" for his letter in Friday's Herald in reference to Bishop Liston's political utterances. They are certainly entirely his own, arid his episcopal rank gives him no right to utter as the mouthpiece of- Catholic opinion, which he certainly is not politically, and by which he has done more harm to the status of the Catholic Church in New Zealand than perhaps he is aware. There, are already too many ignorant utterances regarding Catholics and the Catholic Church voiced by members of other denominations, and it is to be regretted that colour has been given to them by His Lordship's expressions, which' the majority of Catholics hope he will keep to himself in the future. " Pax. PROHIBITION IN AMERICA. Sir,—Will you kindly permit me to reply to the views of two archbishops on the subject of prohibition in America? Archbishop O'Shea must have a very poor opinion of the intelligence of the wealthy employers of America when he tells us that they passed the prohibition law in. the hope" that its enforcement would make for* the efficiency, of their workers, and then immediately decided to defeat their I object by themselves refusing to obey the ' law. The various statements that follow regarding the prevalence of liquor under prohibition are somewhat difficult to reconcile ; first we are informed that drink is everywhere; then we have the sweeping assertion that "it is taken out every time people go for a motor ride" (evidently total abstainers do not ride in motor-cars in America), "because they know that they cannot procure it at the wayside inns:" Is it not appalling to find that the only people who refuse to break the law are the former licensed liquor sellers? The assertion that prohibition has fostered disrespect for law is easy to make, but very difficult-to prove; and as tending to show that it has not had, the effect claimed, I would point out that official reports prove that in practically- every State that adopted State prohibition crime diminished from 50 to 90 per cent., and our own no-license areas have consistently shown a like result. Both archbishops, are beautifully in accord in their testimony till we come to the concluding statement in Archbishop's Dukig's version, where he tells, us that "people who fought prohibition formerly because they were in the trade, would vote in favour of it now because they can still carry on their, trade and make a much larger profit than . they made before." So the ex-saloon-keepers are no bettej than other people after all. W. Johnstone.