GOVERNMENT BY MINORITY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1263, 14 May 1896, Page 11

GOVERNMENT BY MINORITY.

"Anti-Humbug" writes as follows: | Perhaps you will allow me space to express my opinions (not unshared) upon the present, state of things, which I consider are accurately described by tho heading to this letter. I alludo to the manner in which the majority aro tyrannised over by a Pharisaical minority who wish to abolish all liberty of the subject in tho matter of drinking strong liquor, or gambling in any shape or form," save only the mild form of the latter indulged in by themselves at church bazaars Ac. New Zealand is not, as a country, a church-going one, and clergymen (savo in one denomination) have but°littlo real influence with the masses, and yet the power exercised by the parsons and'their small following of temperance lecturers and goody-goody busybodies ia out of all proportion ; greater than it would be were it not for the supinenoss evinced by those chiefly interested in tho questions that theso amiable enthusiasts take upon themselves to decide. The parsons and their followers declare that it is a sin to partake of that element which occupies such a prominent position in ono of their own ceremonials, and which their own great Master, if the Bible is to bo believed, once Himself created when there seemed likely to be a shortage of it at a marriage feast. I allude of course to the miracle performed at Cana in Galilee. Prohibition, however, will never be an accomplished fact until the naturo of the race changes considerably. It is merely tho easy-going, lethargic temperament of those who use liquor that has allowed the Prohibition movement to go as far as it has done. "Were a plebiscite of the people to bo taken to-morrow, the result would altogether dishearten thoso who ttieh to make their fellows virtuous by Act of Parliament, Instead of year by year persecuting the poor publicans, who after all are fellow-citizens, and have, or ought to have, their rights as well as Mr Isitt and his intolerant crew, why not take a plebiscite at the time of tho general election on the simple question of Prohibition, undisturbed by minor issues of increaso or decrease cf licenses, which might bo safely left to the licensing committees to decide, as the people would only elect men likely to give effect to their opinions ? Should the popular verdict be against Prohibition, then let the question be arbitrarily hung up for a lengthy term, say ten years, and thus give the people who have invested their all in tho business tho same rights and privileges they would possess if their money were invested in somo other legitimate business. As it is thero is no inducement to an hotel-keeper to conduct his house in a respectable manner. Ho knows not what a day may bring forth, and his only object is to clear as much as he can as quickly as ho can. He may conduct his house like a young ladies' boarding school, and yet at any moment, almost without being aware of it, may bo accused by some ignorant chaw-bacon jack-in-office, of tho breach of somo of the regulations invented to make his life miserable, and by the indiscretion of a moment lose the savings of years, for of w hat value is a public-houso when its license is taken away ? Were tho licensing laws administered strictly without fear or favour 1 have no hesitation in saying that Prohibition would bo achieved, as thero would be no hotels. I have been (as a visitor) in a good many hotels in my time, and haro never seen one yet in which it was impossible to get a drink after hours or on Sunday, and in the very best conducted hotels there are occasions on which rows aud rowdy conduct have occurred. Bows happen in private houses, even the most aristocratic, and must at times in hotels, but aro generally promptly suppressed (in police court language). If tho hours were extended to 11 p.m. on week days, and Sunday trading (within regulated hours as in England) were recognised, the laws would not bo broken and thero would be no more drinking than at present, if as much. At present a man, say, rides ten miles into a township, has business to do that takes him till nine or after, goes down to the hotel to pass an hour or two away after being away back in the bush for a month or six weeks without seeing a soul, and is hardly at the hotel before ho is told to clear out, as if lie were a criminal. I say that the countrymen of no other L-ounlry in Hie world (and 1 have been in one or two) would stand it as New Zealanders do. If the law were really strictly administered even the New Zealanders would not ; but it is not. The police make scapegoats every now and then, but the fact still remains. The extra hour would make all the difference. A publican would then be able to please his customers without having to break tho law, a fault that always suggests tho reflection that if is as well to be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and that you would suffer no more by keeping open to 2 a.m. than 10.30 p.m. I passed a pretty lengthy period in London where tho hotels (at that time) kept open on Sundays until 11 p.m., andwereopen all through Hie day, save during church hours, and can honestly say that I have seen more drunkenness on Sundays in New Zealand than I saw in London, and I have been over twenty years in the Colony. In London they won't serve a drunken man on Sunday, but in New Zealand they simply deny having served him. Australian papers are continually deriding our liquor laws as a gross interference with tho liberty of the subject, and with good reason. New Zealand is undoubtedly the ideal country for experimental legislation, but if the faddists don't take care they will bo left with only the parsons and themselves to experiment upon.

Abolishing consultations drove a good .£IOO,OOO yearly from this Colony to our neighbours, which means (as they have been abolished about 13 years') .£1,300,000 driven away, besides the postal revenue lost by the same suicidal madness. The grand material element (so strong in New Zealand) wish to do array rrith horso racing; The totalisator is doomed so they say, and our Liberal Premier, from whom We expected better things, seems inclined to play | into their hands, perhaps unintentionally. A large section would do away with smokI ing, and the next question will bo where is I our revenue to come from ? And the only answer available will be to put a £IOOO tax upon clergymen and a £ 10,000 tax on the lawyers and temperance lecturers.