AN INTOXICATED RHETORICISAN.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4378, 8 June 1901, Page 4

AN INTOXICATED RHETORICISAN.

The llev. F. W. Lsitt amused himself, and probably tickled his auditors, the other day by denouncing the City of Wellington, to a temperance meeting at Auckland, as “the most drunken city of New Zealand.” He spoke, apparently, from his own experience. He had lived here, h e said, for eleven months, and therefore he knew. Now, it would be interesting to know how he knew. A man may live a long time in a place without seeing very much below the surface of things; and a man of fixed ideas may, by living anywhere, persuade himself that everything that comes before his eyes supports his ideas with irrefragable testimony; yet both these men may be wrong. The mild curate of no

experience whatever who undertakes to watch psychological phenomena, socalled, and calmly pronounces as the result that there was no attempt at deception, is a type by no means scarce. Therefore, we repeat, it would bo a good thing to know what arc the sources of Mr Isitt’s opinion about the drinking habits of the city. The latest returns, of course, do not boar out the reverend gentleman at all. In the division of Now Zealand statistics dealing with law and crime, the convictions for drunkenness in the Magistrates’ Courts during the year 1899 are set down as follows : Auckland ... ... ... 908 Wellington... ... ... 077 Christchurch ... ... 390 Dunedin ... ... ... 49G The first thing that strikes one in this little column is that, judged by a standard which is entitled to credit, the heaviest drinking is done at Auckland, not at Wellington. Mr Isitt happened to be in Auckland when he defamed this city as he did • and perhaps that is the reason why, when he said the most drunken city, he forgot to add “except Auckland.” If so, then there must bo a hick of moral courage about the reverend gentleman which will pain his friends of th 0 temperance fold considerably. On the other hand, if ho deliberately went against the figures, without any forgetfulness, comment would be needless. W e do not for one moment believe that Mr Isitt deliberately did anything he ought not to have done. But the figures leave us no alternative but the conclusion that lie was speaking very rashly and not by any “card” that commands respect. The figures de not show that Wellington was in 1899 the most drunken place in Now Zealand. If they may, by a straining of language, be said to support any such conclusion, they assign the bad eminence to Auckland. They seem to do so with considerable emphasis, for they assign to Auckland, which exceeds AVellington in population by about one sixth, a higher proportion of drunkenness by as much as 50 per cent. Figures prove then, if they prove anything, that Auckland is not only more drunken, but more drunken to the extent of half as much again. Under these circumstances, it requires recklessness of a stupendous character to proclaim that Wellington is the more drunken city of tEe two. The main question is, however, more important considerably than any one’s rash statements concerning it. It cannot bo said that the statistics of drunkenness in any community are other than regrettable; but it is possible for even such statistics to have a bright side. The severest moralist dan say of them that they have a bright side when they show regular growing signs of amendment. Now', this is exactly what the statistics of New Zealand do .show. For the scries of years 1885-97 the returns are of “prisoners convicted of drunkenness received into gaol”:

1885 ... 1200 1893 ... CIO 1887 ... 1038 1895 ... 469 1889 ... 802 1897 ... 486 ,1891- ... - 694 This is, as the Registrar-General points out, “corroborative evidence of growing sobriety among the People.” Yet Mr Isitt, in the Auckland' address from which wc have quoted, drew attention to the growing consumption of intoxicants in a connection which conveyed by implication the idea that drunkenness was steadily increasing. When there is gratifying evidence to the contrary, why did not Mr Isitt state it? The omission to do so is so significant that one is driven to the suspicion that the temperance advocates feel a sort, of instinctive dislike for an improvement which they feel is not altogether due to their influence. Are they turning pale at the sight of a people determined to ho sober in spite of the prohibitionists? It remains to consider the reasons for the differences between the four chief centres in thi\ matter of the drinking habit. At the outset, wo must look the facts fairly in the face. Doing so, we find that the rate of drunkenness follows the sea: where there is most shipping, there the convictions for drunkenness are most numerous. Now, the numbers of persons returned on the night of the census as on shipboard in the chief ports were : Auckland 1047 Wellington ... ... 334 Dunedin ... ... 377 In Christchurch, of course, there could not be any. At first sight the order of convictions, if the theory is correct, should b e Auckland, Dunedin, Wellington, Christchurch. But tho order is Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin, Christchurch. The explanation is that Auckland and Wellington, being ports M well as capitals, contain all the seafaring population, whereas Dunedin only contains a portion of that population, the rest being at Port Chalmers. Auckland has, moreover, the largest number of small craft, and therefore the largest number of sailors, and Wellington, with a larger trade, requires at least as large a proportion of the class closely allied to the seafaring a-s does Auckland. MoreoverySunday, March 31st last, was ah exceptionally poor day for the shipping ; the 334 returned as on board ship not representing a fair average at all. The presence of “Jack ashore” accounts for the gradation of the figures. The numbers of convictions for drunkenness are, however, small, and arc yearly getting less, so we may fairly regard the seamen as participating in the general advance. On the whole, then, the drink question in New Zealand generally, and in Wellington in particular, is, when approached without rashness, found to be distinctly encouraging.