JOHN STUART MILL OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13209, 16 February 1905, Page 10

JOHN STUART MILL OPPOSED TO PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Su:,—Mr Thomson in his article with tho above hooding is evidently trying to mystify, the average render by darkening coiuisel with (i multitude of words. Mr Thomson must, know that in .writing the way he docs in that article lie writes above the heads ot the bulk of those who are deeply interested in tho drink question. ' But I can toll him that those who cannot follow him in his subtle reasoning will not follow liim at all—(.hoy will follow, plain writers. But, subtle as he is, I can rub him out. I shall deal only, with such points in his article as are really pertinent- to the question ill hand. We are treated once more with a rehash of that now famous "saying of Mr. A. S. Adams: "Drink, drunkenness, crime, death—the cause and 'its logical necessary effect."'. It is the word "necessary" that is the stumbling block to Mr Thomson. Ho, fays there is 110 necessary connection between drink, drunkenness, crime, and death. But there is a necessary connection between sin and death: Whosoever sins must necessarily die. Now we know that death reigned 011 earth millions of -years before Adam was created, which shows that death is a 'law'of Nature, and not necessarily the result of sin. By leaving that word necessary out the phrase would read ," drink, drunkenness,.crime, death.". Now, I do not think that even Mr Thomson will deny that drunkenness, crime, and' death havo been the corollary o£ drink'from the days that Noah is»s deceived by the'wino he drank, and seeing that these yffccts have always attended the drink, and' ! that it has hitherto defied the ingenuity of man to prevent these effects resulting from the drink," what does if. matter weather.they are necessary effects, or not?. .Thev attend the drink, and we have got to deal with .things as they arc, and this is what the people of this colony •are going to do, and' Mr Thomson's fine sesthetie straw-splitting reasoning will not have the least effect upon-them. Now thore is nothing calling for'remark in all that follows until I come near the end of the. article where Mr Thomson quotes Mill. X have quoted two lines from-Mr Thomson's article. I shall now quote 10 more, and these 12 lines really contain tho gist of his article, which is vcty near a column long. So much for Mr Thomson's abilities as a writer. This is . what , Mill says:—" A theory of social rights, the like of which probably never before found its way into distinct language, being nothing short of this —that it'is the absolute riarht of every individual that every other individual shall act in every respect as he ought: that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular, violates my social rights, and entitles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance.'!; Now I am going to deal with this , proposition from a New Zealand standpoint, and not as Mill puts it. And the difference between the two positions is this: The individuals who are asking the legislature to legislate for their special behalf are' the alcohol drinkers. Or. it would be more,correct to say that those individuals are trying to blcek legislation to suit themselves. That is the position, and I will prove it out of Mr Thomson's own mouth. In a lettcr-of'his which I replied to about ■two' month's ago ho said that one man standing in, his rights ro the drink was stronger than 1,000,000 men. who had not right on their side. I do not profess to have given Jlr Thomson's oxbj, 1 - words, but I am substantially, correct. Now I remark that -tlie right to drink is not' the question at issue, nor. what a man shall drjnk either: the contest is over licensed houses! These are . public established by statute law, and therefore' they come fairly, within the-province of society to deal with them, and individuals as such can have no inherent right l in their maintenance! Such a ■right is wholly inimical to democracy. And ; vet Mr Thomson contends that this right ; lias more force than the democracy. That is ■ tlie position.Now who. are the tyrants— | the. monstrous innovators of social rights? Is it prohibitionists who are acting in accordance with'the principles of democracy or Mr' Thomson's-individuals? I leave tho reader t<>/ : answer the question,- And Mr 1

.Thomson can sec up his nine pins again, lot I have knocked them all down.—l am, etc., . . T. BOittHf. - February 9. ..