PROHIBITION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12831, 27 November 1903, Page 5

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,,—lt is certainly ,a curious fact that' whenever the indulges in controversy he is unable to. refrain from personal abuse of his opponent; but ho Is no doubt carrying out the old maxim, " When you have a weak case abuse the other side's attorney." The letters of "A Moderate Drinker" and "Anti-Hypccrisy" illustrate this. The former indulges in such expressions as " infatuated with prejudice," " void of common sense," " wild and unsupported statements," and so on; white tho latter kindly calls my statements "absolutely untrue," and myself "profoundly ignorant," with "littlo sense of responsibility." In consequence, ho tells \\a grandiloquently he does not propose to take further notice of my letters, which final threat, however, dees not greatly disturb me, for, after all, I never invited his notice. Now all this is Very sad, but it docs not lead us much further. I can a-miro "A Moderate Drinker" that I was not fishing for information, and if I was I should not dream of applying to any prohibitionist far it, for their statistics are of the home-made kind, and seldom bear scrutiny, For instance, the number of conviotions for drunkenness per mean thousand of tho population in tho colony is a triflo over 7, which amounts roughly to 1 in 140, not 1 in 95, as "A Moderate Drinker" would havo us believe; and as Olutha reached the total of 12 convictions cut of a population of some 10,000 I should call that 1 in about 840—or rather above the average of other agricultural districts,—and not 1 in 2000. Of course "A Moderate- Drinker" gleefully contrasts Olutha with the rest of the colony, well knowing that it is an unfair comparison, for in every country agricultural, sparsely-populated districts compare favourably with the crowded citic3. How Oiutlia comparer with similar districts may bo gathered from a somewhat amusing experience of my own. A prohibitionist showed me in triumph how in oho year (I think 1898) Olutha under prohibition. had only one conviction for drunkenness, and I had to admit that it was a splendid record, but his triumph vanished when 1 pointed out that ill tho same year Bruoc—under license—had nono! Wherever prohibition has been in force for more than four years it has been a success, says "A Moderate Drinker," and ho bases this assertion upin " Government statistics," while anyone who disputes it does » on the " unsunnortcd. discredited, and incrpdihln

statements of fabulous statistics." Wet lot us seo on which side the fabulous sta , tistics are used. Prohibition has been ii , force in Maine not four, but over 40 years, . and its chief city (Portland) holds, I think, tho world's record for drunkenness, (ho convictions amounting to no less than 4-2 psr 1000 of tho population. Compare this . with New Zealand's coven! Now, this is , not an unsupported or discredited statement: it is from the. evidence given by , officials of that city to the Royal Canadian Commission; and to the same commission , .was given a mass of evidence—which is published, and may bo read by anyone—by bishops, clergy, governors, mayors,' sheriffs, chiefs of police, bankers, lawyers, doctors, and prominent citizens of various occupations, to the effect that prohibition not only failed to prohibit, but had increased drunkecness and all kinds of depravity. I know that tho prohibitionists do not believe this, for I possets a book written from their sido which lips (ho brazen audacity to state that the whole of the evidence given to tho commission supported the claims of prohibition, trusting to its readers not to iook for themselves. But .tire evidence is there 'for anyone to read. So much for the United States. And as to Canada, we have an official report made by the Gover-mor-gonoral to tho Secretary of State for the colonies to the effect that prohibition has proved a limited .success in ngr!cul:u:'a! districts and a failure in the towns arad cities. Now, eo far as I know, there is no other place in the world where prohibition is in existence, so perhaps "A Moderate Drinker" will give his "Government statistics" as to these. I know that prohibitionists are fond of quoting Norway, but prohibition, as we understand it, is unknown there. "Anti-Hypocrisy's" letter need not take up much • time. He not only fails to apologiso for his misrepresentation, but repeats it. and then makes statements about Bruce, Mataura, and Clutha. which I think he would find difficult to prove. In one Bruce town I took tho trouble to get the opinion of every representative storekeeper, and found none to praise but many to condemn the new state of affairs. He then repeats, apparently mistaking repetition for argument, his assertion about the responsibility of the drunkard. Well; it so happens that I have an intimate acquaintance with mental scientists in England, mv father and two brothers having been, and Ijeing,' specialists in mental diseases, and I probably know- what I am talking about a great deal better than "Anti-Hypocrisy,'' 'who wrAikl have us believo that the Imperial Government acted in defiance oi their opinion in providing institutions for the rational treatment of drunkards. But a 5 he is not going to take any more notice of me, it is not worth while trying to convince

him. If, however, ho should honour me iby reading this letter, may I assure him that I freely 'forgive the childish petulance of his last paragraph, and put.it down to the weakness of his case.-—I am, etc.,. November 21. B. C. L.