THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13187, 21 January 1905, Page 4

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

■ TO TUB KDITOK. ■Sir,-Mr Maude, lias replied to my letter of the 13th inst. in a way which shows tho weakness of his case aiid his inability to reply |o solid ■argument, Mead of doing so ho chiefly occupies his space with new and irrelevant matter with no bearing on the points I raised. In his rambling he speaks of our p.irty using 11 vehement and incoherent speech." It was myself ho had to ileal with in Ilia letter and not the party, and I challenge him to point to anything In my letter to whioh his remarks would Apply. He sjieaks contemptuously of our party as " water, drinkers," and shows his ignorance nf tlie true meaning of total abstinence. Ho thinks, that if men do not imbibo copious quantities of liquor they must drink large quantities of water. He forgets that the thirst Jor liquor is an artificially-created thirst, due entirely to the drink itself, and. when a; man abandons liquor he wants nothing in its. place. Mr' Maude refers to a correspondent who';aske'd'.yoif to exclude from your paper the letters of another correspondent, and from this he deduces the opinion that " if our party should ever get the upper hand there would be very little liberty of the press or speech or action left, if they could stamp it out, Unhesitating and blind submission, to their views would be the only liberty tolerated." It is not the first .time that this has been said of pur party. Btifr thoso who. say such things know'that they are uttering a base slander against the party. Tlicy know that we qro the true .conservators of liberty—liberty to

do. orerything which is right for people to' do, and the best way to securo that end is to suppress crying evils. It liberty to sell intoxicants was compatible with the best interests of society, tho men vclio" are ,at tho head, of the no-license movement would never lift finger or voice against licenses. Has liberty suffered where no-license is now in force? Mr Maudo mokes a feeble attempt to refute my contention that.it is ■not. bcoause drunkards arc wanting in a special degree in moral stamina and backbono that they fall victims to ■ the drink. He saya that I do not allow that lack of tlicso qualities has anything to do with making drunkards. I said no such tiling. My contention was that, drunkards, before they became drunkards, possessed those qualities in an avorago degree. Tho words " average" and "special clegreo" used by mo. refute Mr Maude's statomont. I only olaimed an average degree of thoso qualities for. the victims of the drink. Mr Maudo denied that they possessed those qualities in any degree. It is absurd to contend that , the class of peoplo.named by me as having fallen victims to tho drink were entirely wanting 111 moral stamina and backbone. While there are plenty of peoplo with' scarcely senso enough to say "boo" to a goosowho are supposed to lead sober lives through tho possession of 111 wo qualities in a very high degree, it is this faofc which enables these peoplo to resist temptation. Those peoplo are not tho subjects of temptation in a truo sense. The temptation which creates drunkards is within the man, which T called affinity for alcohol, hik) which Sir Maudo affects to ridicule. Ho may as well ridicule the difference of taste for food which exists in different people, which finds its expression in tho caving r.hat what is food for one man is poison for another. I leave this point to tho judgment of readers. And for Mr Maude's attempt to establish an analogy between drunkards and criminals, that is equally absurd. Tho process of making drunkards is wholly different from making criminals. There arc no public placeo to tempt people to beoomo oriminals like unto public drinking houses. Tho analogy between two eases holds good as regards innate tendency, or heredity, if Mr Maudo would prefer that word lo affinity. There are 110 doubt people horn with a strong tendency to steal, tho same as tliero aro peoplo born with a strong affinity for alcohol, and it is this difference, combined with unfavorable environments, that accounts for thieves and drunkards. But the pressure brought to bear upon men, and especially young men, to force them to drink through the public drinking bars ia infinitely greater than can bo brought to bear to tempt men generally to commit crime. I may close this letter by saying thai society suffers only a minimum of evil from criminals and a maximum of evils from the drinking habit.—l am, etc., January 18. T. Boston.