TEMPERANCE CLIPPINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9331, 23 January 1892, Page 5 (Supplement)

TEMPERANCE CLIPPINGS.

True, Isn't It.—'

•"Oh, well," says one, "it

is a free country. If a man wants to drink let him take the consequences." Yes, but the trouble is the man takes the drink and somebody else takes the consequences. Husband takes the drink, wife takes the consequences. Father takes the drink, children take the consequences.

Where Phohibition- Does Prohibit — Rev Dwigkt M. Pratt, of Portland, Maine, in a recent article in the Boston Congregationalism says :—" Much that is imaginary and fabulous has been said about the results of prohibition in Maine. Qne at a distance is perplexed by this confusion of tongues, and' hardly knows what to believe. There are two things which demonstrate, that prohibition is not losing ground-in Maine. First, law was never so vigorously enforced as now, and, in the second place, the last Legislature has added prohibitory amendments to the law so stringent as tc. make the introduction of liquor into the State almost impossible. .... If any psrison in this fair kind still believes that prohibition does not prohibit, let him come to Maine, and see. *' .

Liquor Mkn Frightened.—ln view of the meeting of the saloon kespers of Indiana at Indianapolis, the Champion, their organ, siys:—-"There never was a time within the Lst 15 years when the saloon keepers of the State of Indiana stood more ia need of a widespread, solid, earnest, hard-working mutual protective association than at this time. Indiana is one of the States in which the prohibitionists are more earnestly at work than in any other, and unless you Indiana saloon keepers, wholesale liquor dealers and brewers unile and wovk earnestly, intelligently, but harmoniously, aad exert your influence as citizens, as business men, as voters in your municipal, county, and State elections, your crafty foes will crush you and the whole liqftor traffic in Indiana out of existence."

Is the Hands of the Philistines—Commenting upon Dr Mortimer Granvil'.e's

"famous''letter to the London Times, the Leeds Mercurr says :— '| Having had his authority shaken on tha question as to how far teetotalism is -physically prejudicial or otherwise, Dr Mortimer Granville now takes up the matter as one of ' party policy,' aud cannot explain his assonishment at Mr Gladstone's declaration iv favour of Local Option without gorog very nsav to losing his temper. He declares, that when he took up the subject of drinking as a cause of druukenness, he had ' no notion that the political mauceuvre which has for some months past been in contemplation, and of which Sir William Harcourt gave the warning signal in a recent speech, was to be carried into effect with the colerity and completeness which the last few hours have witnessed.'" A contributor to the Times writes :r—" four correspondents who have replied to it have shown very clearly that the arguments advanced thai-em are contrary to fact. There was one argument in particular which struck me as bsing strangely illogical, that' Drunkenness is in no other sense the consequence of drinking, than the destruction of a house by fire is the consequence of having a cooking range on the premises.' Were is the analogy ? The fire which is placed: in a rangeis restricted to a very-small, area, and slwo subject to proper control; but when the poison alcohol is introduced into the human house, it is not subject to any restrictions, but is very quickly coursing through the blood all over that house. If fire were carried into every part of a dwelling in this manner, how long a period would elapse before tha building was destroyed ? "