PROHIBITION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1288, 5 November 1896, Page 34

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent Mr G. M. Yerex gives himself away when he says “ Prohibition removes temptation, and makes it hard to do wrong and easy to do right.” The truth is that Prohibition, by removing possibility of temptation, makes not only wrong, but also right impossible. Merit of personal conduct can no longer be possible. For instance, were there no rights of property, there would be no thieves; were there no marriage, there could be no breach of marriage laws. The way of Prohibition would be to abolish theft and adultry, by abolishing rights of property and marriage laws, and mike it penal to accumulate property or get married. The process is one which apparently establishes good conduct, while it really makes good conduct impossible. Thus the principle of Prohibition is in truth opposed to morality; therefore, immoral per se. And since the end does not justify the means, Prohibition must be rejected on a priori moral grounds. If this position cannot be upset, the forcing of Prohibition on the minority by a majority becomes a crime. In the face of these considerations it is beside the point exhibiting ad nauseam the chamber of horrors of drunkenness for the purpose of justifying Prohibition. The conclusion is that sobriety has to be attained by a different method. — I am, &c., G. llirsch. Palmerston North, 27th October, 1890. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In a letter in your correspondence column signed John Plimmer, m reply to “ Democrat,” the writer asks for what reason should Prohibitionists be allowed to interfere in other men’s business ; and if he thinks it is right to ruin one portion of society because he thinks they are doing something which he in his innocence considers a nuisance to him and others ? On behalf of “ Democrat,” I would like to say, firstly, that the Prohibitionist as a rule does not consider himself or herself, but others. No reform in the liquor traffic is necessary for the Prohibitionist, neither is its total abolition ; but it is for others, and it is for others that the Prohibitionist is fighting and will continue to fight. I understand that Mr Plimmer owns considerable property in Wellington. Some time since the Legislature passed what is now known as the Wellington Drainage Act. One part of the Act was so made that it was easier to carry the scheme through by the ratepayers at the poll than by any Act previously in existence—result, loan was carried; necessity, the health of the inhabitants. Some people opposed that loan, and why ? Because they considered the Legislature was interfering with their liberty. One would probably argue that there was no necessity for the Act; the health of Wellington was equal to the health of any other city; and further that he held considerable property, and the Legislature by giving a majority an easier mode of getting what they wanted (and properly so) had robbed him of income. The revenue from rents would be reduced, the putting in of connections to the main sewers (compulsory) would lessen his capital, and altogether the majority were, in his or her opinion, interfering with his or her vested interest, and so on ; in fact, taking the bread out of his or her mouth, and for what ? To satisfy the desire of a majority. Where does the “liberty of the subject ” come in; and what right had this majority to interfere in this manner with the liberty of the minority ?

The argument is equal in this case as it is in the other. —I am, &c., Job 'Vile. Pahaitua, October 24, 1890. [lf Mr Vile may be taken as an average “reasoner” on the side of Prohibition, then we should say it is apparent that “ those who drink water think water.”— Ed.] TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —As an example of the largest body of non-drinkers extant, let us take the women of the world. Do we find their abstinence from drink an argument in favour of Prohibition ? I do not think so. Screened, as the great majority of women are, from rough contact with the world, we would expect them to be free from everything base and unworthy, especially as drinking cannot be given as an excuse. But, instead of this, do we not find selfish worldliness the special female characteristic of the day ? How many men have been married for what they are themselves, and not for their position ? Even if a woman is conscious that her lover is better adapted to her in every way than any other man, in how many cases will she accept him if she be offered the hand of another man who happens to be in a much better position ? And is not this marrying for position an accentuation of the problem of Rich versus Poor ? How often do we find marriages spoiled by means of female hatred and jealousy, and is not the creating of discord between husband and wife as deeply criminal, and as evil in its consequences, as any human action can be ? Take any house where there happen to be a number of females only a boarding-house, for instance • and enquire if peace and harmony are the prevailing features of the house. I need not enlarge. Let your readers do so for themselves, and I think the conclusion to every truth-loving mind will be that Prohibition would certainly not better society in its present condition. How long will it take Prohibitionists to see that drink is but an effect, and that a better state of things can only be brought about by searching out and removing the cause ? Certainly, holding the bone of contention in their mouth, and barking at all who happen to cross their path, will never improve things.—l am, &c., Zealandia.