PROHIBITION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 4996, 10 June 1891, Page 3

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I can easily understand the objection which any thoughtful and educated man might have to stand upon a public platform and discuss the drink question with such a person as, say, Mr Tennyson Smith, or another of his stamp. Before a mixed audience the wind-bag style of oratory, mere declamation, helped out by a little third-rate dramatic caricature, might very well be expected to win the day against simple logic. I confess, however, to some surprise that so few of your thinking readers have thought it worth their while to ask for space in your columns for the expression of their views. The extremists and the enthusiasts rush into print, and unblushingly expose their folly, but those who regard the question in dispute from a judicial point of view, and weigh the arguments for and against impartially, keep silence. The greater the pity ! I ain a moderate. If not, lat any rate think I am, and wish to be, one. I fully believe that a large, if not the larger, portion of the Prohibitionists think that they are acting for the best. That the withdrawal of the licenses will, to a great extent, diminish the evils of intemperance, and will result in no counterbalancing evils. But, because they think so, it by no means follows that-they are right. I, for my part, think fcfiat they are wrong. I grant them that intemperance in the use of intoxicants is one of the most crying evils of the day, and that all good men should join hands in the en deavor to suppress it. But let us act with reason, let us do no evil, with the mere hope, or upon the chance, that good may come. Let us look the question fairly in the face and endeavor to see if we are dealing with it in a proper spirit and with a due and fair regard for the interests of all concerned. lam sure no sensible, honest business mau will deny that closing the licensed houses in Oamaru will do a large amount of direct and indirect injury, principally to the town, but also otherwise. 1. It will directly deprive the town of a large amount of revenue. 2. It will indirectly largely affect, prejudicially, the interests of our business men. 3. It will be a cause of great inconvenience to travellers, and to that portion of our community which uses stimulants in moderation. 4. It will depreciate enormously, indeed almost render worthless in the hands of the owners, the buildings now licensed. 5. It will practically ruin a great many of the licensees. Now, against this, what is claimed by Prohibitionists ? They say: " Granted all you urge, but it will prevent drunkenness." But will it? If it would, I for one should be disposed to admit that the result was sufficient compensation for the losses which were its necessary attendants. But will there be this result? Will the drunkard cease to be intemperate in drinking, because the publichouse is closed—because the licensed, legal traffic in drink is put an end to ! I fear not. I mil not go the length of saying, with some, that the evil will be greater ; but I will say this, that it will be so little less tha the end will- ifo nowise have justified the means. A drunkard here and there may be reclaimed, but the large majority of excessive drunkards will still drink excessively, the only difference being that instead of drinking openly they will drink by stealth ; instead of being supplied with fairly pure liquor, they will be drugged with adulterated poison, and instead of frequenting decent houses supervised by the police,"they will herd with criminals in dens of infamy. This will be the only result brought about by the Prohibitionists, if their present attempt is successful, and if they are too blinded by their enthusiasm, all honest though it may be, to see the consequences to which that attempt is surely tending, let all Moderates combine to -frustrate their endeavors.—l am, etc., Index.