PROHIBITION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11302, 30 August 1922, Page 3

PROHIBITION

“AN EXPLODED FAD” EVILS OP ABOLITION IN UNITED STATES. REPLIES TO REV. HAMMOND. Tho evils of prohibition rvore dealt with at some length by tho Rev. Wyndham Her.tlicote, 8.A., in an address before a crowded audience at the Town Hail Concert Chamber, last evening, when he made reply to criticisms which, have been made oh a previous lecture delivered by him. Mr Martin Luckie presided, and tho hail was crowded to the doors. . ~ , Mr Heathoote said tne Rev. Hammond had recently placed his head in a noose in a speech upon the liquor question, and he intended to pull the string. Mr Hammond had referred to tho Unitarian Church, of which the speaker was a minister, as an ''also ran** church. Mr Heathcoto took exception to this refer ence on the score of bad taste, and reminded Mir Hammond that though it was a humble and insignificant church in Now Zealand, it had the allegiance of some of the greatest intellects of tho present and past centuries in other countries. Ho hoped that for the future all sectarianism would bo left out of the present campaign. (Applause.) It had been suggested, lie proceeded, that ho was not a competent judge of the results of prohibition in America, as he had been there only a few months. In what he had said he had relied not only on his own observations, but on the much wider knowledge of his brother, who had been a resident of Son Francisco for the past six years,; and who, os a shrewd business man, was very careful in his statements. But even in his own short visit he had evidence enough that prohibition had broken down in its professed object. He had metro drunks in the streets of San Francisco than he saw in Wellington, and in a. much worse condition; he had Keen whisky sold in the clubs; he had been offered drinks on trains: and in private houses he had been offered, and had accepted. home-made brewst—vile concoctions called "hooch." which oeople were supposed to accept if they did not wish to give offence. AN ILLUSORY ALTERNATIVE.

Many people were surprised, and some were shocked, because he ventured to oppose prohibition. It was assumed in defiance of the evidence that prohibition was necessarily right. This was a false assumption, based/ partly bn ignorance of the facts and partly on prejudice. If, as he knew, prohibition was a curse, and increased the evils which it pro* posed to cure, then it was not only right, out it was the duty of a clergyman to oppose it. (Applause.) Knowing what he did he had made, up his mind to do what be could to preserve tb*« rountry from being cursed by a measure so fair in its promisee and 00 ugly in its results. He was oonvinced that the defea4 of prohibition depended upon tho real facts of the ease being got into the minds of the people. The alternatives suggested bv the prohibitionists were illusory. The real alternatives were—on th» one band, the continuance of the drink traffic as we have it now, subject to any possible reform by law, with a certain amount of evil results in the form of excessive drinking; on the other hand, the abolition of the present legitimate trade end tho substitution for it of an illicit trade, purveying to the peoplo very much worse liquor, and the steeping of tho drinking public in drunks, and tho promoting of a general contempt of the law. (Hear, hear.) With the experience of America before us, it was suicidal madness for the peoplo to adopt prohibition. After all, what wore the evils connected with the present trade? While there was a certain amount of drunkenness in the country, yet on the whole the people of New Zealand were not a drunken people, but on tho contrary very sober people. Wet New Zealand was not onc-third as drunken as prohibition Chicago. (Applause.) In 1921 Chicago, with a population of two and a half millions, had 51.360 drunken oases before the courts, whereas New Zealand, with a population of one and a quarter millions, had only 9000, and according to one official report only 5000. Further, New Zealand had many seaports, and many of these cases were sailors from the ships and were not native New Zealanders at all. For wet New Zealand to be as drunken as dry Chicago it should have 23,000 eases, instead of 8000. What was all the fuss about, he asked? (Laughter.) Why jeopardise the sobriety of tho people and irritate a law-abiding-people by unnatural legislation? The prohibitionists might be well intentioued people, but they should add to their zeal a little knowledge of the facts and understand that while prohibition in this country was imitative of an American idea, in America itself it was bom in hvpocrisy and cradled in corruption. (Hear. hear.) Prohibition defied the laws of nature, the love of liberty, and the British hatred of coercion. It defied the natural appetite for alcohol and it ignored the scientific fact that alcohol was not only a food and a medicine, but. in some form or_ another was a Necessity for human existence. Hence the meet progressive minds in every ace bad been against prohibition, from Milton to Lincoln, and from Lincoln to Wilson. MR HAMMOND CRITICISED.

ter Hammond 'had claimed that prohibition was commonsoDse, etc., etc., but he had omitted to state that his (Mr Hcathcote's) argument was wrong in psychology. This omission might be taken, to mean that Mr Hammond allowed that he was correct in that. When h$ had said that prohibition was wrong in principle he had meant that It was a violation of the liberties of the individual for half of the community to dictate to the other half in the matter of their personal habits—what they should eat. drink, and put on. For someone else to take thought for one in these matters was an impertinonco. Beside**, it was a one-sided game. If the prohibitionists won then the losers had to adopt the habits of the winners. It was n case of “Hoads I win, tails you lose.*’ It was not a sporting proposition. The majority never represented the will of the people unless the voto was unanimous or nearly so. All the world knew that this country was very equally divided on the subject, and thus the peoplo had no single will in the matter. Iho obvious conclusion was that half the people should not coerce the .other hr.lf either one way or the other. Again it was said that majorities ruled in democracy, and a majority formed the Government. True, but minorities were represented by the Opposition, and in proportion to their strength; but by the terms of the referendum, if the "Ann* lost they were not represented at all. hut if the Prohibitionists lost they <tad their way as before. If the prohibitionists, in the event of losing the referee, clum, had to drink beer and wine and •rpirits, they would not be so anxious to hoM a refermduni. This was what he had meant when he hsd entd it wrong in principle. In this view he was endorsed by some gret»: authorings. Ahvahniu Lincoln had said In 3840 “Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes bevond the bounds of reason iv that it nttorrmts tn control a man's nonetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of tilings that are not crimes, \

prohibition law strikes a blow at ike very principle on which our Government was founded. ’*

President Wilson, who had vetoed the prohibition law, but had it passed by Congress over his head, liad said; “The wrong way of doing the right thing. . You cannot regulate the morals and habits of a great eosmo politan people by placing unreasonable restrictions upon their liberty and freedom. All such attempts can only end in failure and disappointment. In the last analysis in these matters that seek to regulate personal habits and custom, public opinion is the great regulator.” PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION.

As to prohibition being wrong in philosophy, the prohibition movement, end much of the temperance movement were based on the belief that alcohol was in itself an evil thing. According to alt true Christian philosophy, evil did not reside in alcohol or in any material substance. but in the will of man. The evil consisted in a misuse of that which was in itself either good or morally indifferent. That was what he had meant when he had said it was wrong in philosophy. Mr Hammond had thought ho could answer it by denying that lie (Mr lieatbcote) had said it. When he had said that prohibition was wrong in religion, said Mr Heathcotc, he had meant

that neither the Mosaic noT tihe Christian system of religion had ever paid “Thou shalt not drink,” and therefore we were not wise to say so now. Both systems condemned the excessive use or abuse of drink, but neither condemned the use*of it. Why add another to the list of commandments, and make the way of life harder and narrower? The fact that Jesus drank wine Himself was proof positive that Ho did not endorse prohibition. Mohammed did endorse prohibition. If we. as a Christian country, passed prohibition, it was tantamount to saying that Mohammed was wiser than Jesus Christ. (Applause.) He would have no share in a proposal so dishonouring to the founder of the Chi intian religion. He would not try to make that a crime in law which was not a sin in the Christian ethic, or to pass a law which made Christ a law-breaker, retrospectively. Besides, look at the results! Could the Mohammedan civilisation compare with tho Western? The Turk was more sober than the Briton, but he was more immoral, treated women with greater contempt, and was infinitely more ferocious and cruel. Moreover, he did not live out half his days. The prohibition nations were only half as long-lived as the drinking nations. How strange it was that these Christian supporters of prohibition never referred to the teaching and example of Christ. They could not and dared not do so. Mr Hammond had merely avoided it by saying “Prohibition is just commonsense." Did he mean that the Christ was destitute of commonsense? As a matter of fact it wa6 the Christ who had commonsense, and prohibition was moonshine and lunacy. (Hear, hear.) Mr Hammond's speech was full of wild and whirling statements, as far removed from truth as the poles were from each other. For instance, he had said that prohibition had never been beaten in the history of those who had lived under it. With the exception o T the latest experiment in U.S.A. it would be truer to say that prohibition had never lasted long. British Columbia and Quebec had had it, but both had defeated it. “AN EXPLODED FAD.”

Iceland had. repealed prohibition after ten years. The very man who had induced the country to accept it (the Rev. Siegurd Stephanson) had afterwards induced the country to reject it, having discovered that he was wrong and that prohibition was doing harm to hi s country. Russia, again, had gone back to vodka. The present craze for prohibition was merely a revival of a frequently exploded fad. Mr Hammond had said that the deaths from, alcohol in Philadelphia had decreased under prohibition. The police statistics, however, showed that the amount of drink ©old had increased. It would appear, then, that the more they drank the less they died. (Laughter.) What a paradox —prohibition led to increased drunkenness. and that led to long life 1 Mr Hammond had also said that only a few degenerate wealthy people were breaking the law. Yet the smuggling of .liquor into U.S.A. was 60 great that the officials were unable to cop© with it, and the Government had appealed to the British Government to prevent smuggling from Great Britain. The Prohibition Commissioner for Ohio admitted that' despite seizures there were at least 50,000 stills operating in his State alone, as compared with 100 before prohibition, and tbat there were hundreds of thousands of breweries in place of two hundred. Tho official figures as to the amount of liquor imported into U.S.A. under prohibition from Great Britain for the consumption of a few rich people were:— 1919 1,950 gallons 1920 84,667 gallons 1921 222.391 gallons U 1 months only).

Further amounts, totalling millions of gallons,. were smuggled through Canada during the same period. It was interesting, also, to notice that drinking could not even be stopped on board. American ships crossing to Europe and England. '‘Pussyfoot" Johnston was greatly distressed at this. The American companies advertised their ships on tho Continent as carrying wines and liqueurs. How much smuggled liquor was being consumed it was impossible to say, but it was computed that more liquor was being drunk than at any previous time. Smuggling and boot-legging were now the most lucrative trades in the country, and the people who had become fabulously, rich through these practices were naturally the staunchest supporters of prohibition. (Cries t * Oh! ) Another result of prohibition wao the immense increase in the number of people in U.S.A. who were addicted to drugs. One authority had computed the addicts at from two to three million. Another thing was clear: Prohibition had failed to abolish crime. The number of indictments in Federal courts for crimes of violence were 9,503 in 191*2, and 70,000 in 1921. Had it increased crime? On that question it wns noteworthy that judges and public prosecutors throughout 13.5. A. declared almost unanimously that the great increase in crime might be attributed directly to the prohibition law AN ENGINEERED MEASURE.

The impression had been created that prohibition was the choice of the American people. He wished to state that national prohibition had never been put to the people. Without any vote of the people it was carried as a war measure by Congress and then finally fixed on the people as a peace, measure. Tho American citizen, was now perplexed to find himself in a .prohibition country by a process wtih which he had had nothing to do. Prohibition had been engineered by an organised minority through an adroit u«e of weTI-knowu political method©—by intimidation and corruption. To attempt, to make America vote against prohibition now was all ene with trying to defeat prohibition in New Zealand if the brewers, publicans and drinking public were to join with the prohibitionists. The country was seething with discontent, violence, and strikes, and was bordering on revolution. All over tho country votes were being passed in favour of the repeal of tho prohibition law. In 1919 the wo.lien of America had whole-heartedly supported prohibition, but now they felt a strong revulsion of feeling against it. Prohibition did not suit cosmopolitan America, concluded Mr Heathcote; etiil less would it suit New Zealand! As a .substitute for it ho would advocate any#, thing short of coercion. A hearty vote of thanks was accorded tho speaker.