J. S. MILL AND MR A S. ADAMS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13268, 27 April 1905, Page 10

J. S. MILL AND MR A S. ADAMS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —What a change has come over Mr Adams, as evidenced by his letter which appeared I his morning. When lie. Fancied I was disinclined to continue tho controversy on hig thrco propositions he, metaphorically, brandished his aims, turned up his; sleeves, aiul challenged mo to "come ■ on " and do my worst. Now lie seems to wish to "back out" upon tho weakest plea I over heard of, and _ accuses me of disingonuousucss. Had I intended to be disingenuous .(which the dictionary defines as being" "not open, frank, and candid, flic... hut crafty, sly, and cunning") does hr, think I should have been fool chough to advise "all and sundry," as 1 did, and do. again, to read Milt's essay, < when ' tliey '• oould. and judge for themselves whether ■Mr. Adams or T had-been guilty of giving garbled and misleading quotations from it? I fearlessly leave this issue' to" the decision of all who arc not hopelessly muddled by drink—or prohibition.' It is indeed'difficult to decide which produces the worst* obfuscation of tho reasoning faculties, but it may bo-'observed' that tho aberration caused, by drink is generally temporary, while that induced by' tho prohibition craze seems permanent. Mr Adams, 110 doubt prudently-, avoids all-reference.to,my letter which appeared in yonr i. ; snc of the Bth inst., in reply to his of 30th of last month, and devotes his energies to misquoting and .misstatins what I said in my letter which you published on the 13tii inst. lamby no means enamoured with tlw tu quoquo style of argument, but realty it. is impossible altogether to avoid it in this case, as I shall clearly demonstrate that he is the culprit, not by vague assertions, or garbled and inaccurate quotations, but by indisputable refcrenco to the points Ancl actual text relied upon by. Mr Adams to prove my disingcuuity. (There is no such word, I believe, in tho dictionary, but we liavo ambiguity,' etc., and why not this?) Ho says, at- tho ' commencement of his letter, that I " would' liavo your readers believe that.Mill treats of State education, etc., as illustrations only, and in a. different portion of his book, and in a different manner from his treatment. of prohibition/' This statement of mine is absolutely correct. Mill had in bU previous chapters worked out liis arguments on liliertv, tho chapters being headed as under:—Chapter i: ''Introductory ".; chapter ii: "Of the liberty of thought,and discussion"; chapter iii: "Of individuality as one of the elements, of well being' 1 ; chapter iv: "Of limits_to the authority of society over the individual"; chapter v (the last): "Applications." In commencing the fifth chapter he says:— '" Tlio few observations I propose _to make on questions of detail are designed to illustrat-o tho principles rather than to follow thorn out .to their consequences." , 'Mr Adams says " these words are applied by Mill to. the whole of chapter v of his hook, which includes not only his. opinion about education, etc., but 'alfc'o the very passages- which Maude has before quoted against prohibition." Thi% .'statement is inaccurate and misleading as regards, tho prohibition of liquor. Prohibition U only referred to once, and then incidentally, in chapter y. and only th contradistinction to the principles governing 'trade. This passage I certainly quoted, simply because it occurs in the same paragraph .as Mr: Adams's second proposition, and follows. it, to. show how-utterly foreign it was to Mill's intention. that it should be taken to apply in any way to prohibition; and how careful Mill had been to prevent misconception, for he says: "On tile other hand, there are questions relating to interference with trade, which , are essentially questions of.liberty, such as the Maine law, already touched upon. . . These interferences'.are-, objectionable not. as infringements on the liberty of tho producer or solle.rj but on that, of the buyer." This, shoivs that ,Mill regarded, prohibition of liquor as '-unwarrantable for totally difforerit reasons, and.- on different - grounds, from those. Avhiohi h'<v held; governed interferences , with : (trade, Stale' education,; and Stalo ownership;, of roads, railways, etc. I may remark \that-all the passages quoted by me from"; Mill 'against prohibition, witlr the exception of the one above,' were from chapter iv,. not chapter v, a-s-stated bv Mr Adams;, who goes on:- "But' Mr 'Maude Isay3.tllat.it'. is' grossly, 'unfair' and inaccurate to assert-.that Mill-opposed State education. ■Yery well.". Jt is )iot " very well ". ; • ■ >». - vfry -much • the oontracy, -as .1- mjvec

said anything: of -the kind. What- I sdid-. 6ay was: '-It will,' however, -bo seen how - grosslyunfair ami incorrect it ifl for your : . correspondent to assert that Mill opposed - .Stato education and State ownership of roads, railways, etc., for the samo reasons. < and on the same grounds as lio . opposed ■' tho prohibition of: :tho 'liquor traffic." - A vory -..different statement from that attri- , buted to' mo by Mr Adams, who is ovi-■ ' dently. a " past master" in the o art "of ■ leaving out a few words, or adding one or: two, to an -opponent's .sentenco so .as' to completely and unjustifiably altor its meaning to suit his own side. I never said that' Mill; was not opposed, to State education ,as a principle. Again, in my letter I say:' "Ho is not opposed to Stato education, even as wo havo it,-as any infringement of liberty, but ho deems a slightly different modus operandi preferable," IJieve; 1 fully allow that he is opyated to State; tion. The..wdiole girt of my argument '' 'to show that,'. Mill did not object to Stat# cduoation and' State-owned roads, railway?, etc., "for the" same reasons and on .'tho same- grounds as he opposed the prohibi- ' tion of the liquor traffic," as Mr -Adams i most .untruly stated; and I dcjjt; hini to I provo his contention by any process of j honest quotation, and, on the other hand, I | ongago to prove the correctness of my quotationsarid'dediictions from Mill's essay.to tho •' satisfaction of any judge or lawyer agreed upon.. To do this it would only ho necessary to. produce all the documents—viz.. Mill's essay, and Mr Adams's letters and mine, I don't "pin-my faith'" by any means on .ill Mill's views and opinions; he was fallible; as are all'of us. I have onlybeen dealing with tho question of prohibition, in connection with individual liberty, in which I conceive bis views and arguments nre- demonstrably true. Mr Adams says: " I have not called a witness and found him hostile." Well, if Mill is "not ' a "hostile witness," -when called .to'support ' ' prohibition, I don't know tho meaning of the. term! Ha continues: "I. called this 'witness to provo two general propositions." , In other words, he look one sentence without its ec'ntcxt, and in direct opposition to the' meaning expressly attached to it by. its ■author, and quoted .another which he first ■ said was "from," and not ■'supported by," Mill, and. subsequently, "while not taken literally from tho essay on ' Liberty,' is ' very near it.,'" and to this nondescript proposition 'ho adds the. words "or by popular veto," which was not "very near." but very fur from Mill's idea of good roveriimimt. If this is fair and honest quotation and. argument, then,' again, I , don't kiiow the meaning of the term. If ; Mr Adams wishes, as he anparently, does., to discontinue, this correspondence, I am quito ; willing; but if he' continue? to accuse » '■ of "errors and mis-statemenfs" he must bo prepared to provo them, when I hopo I ; am man enoujh to acknowledge my mistake r and to anologisei. If. hn cannot do this, ho , can Jiardly expect me to refrain from ,eor- [ recting and disputing his statements.-. ' I am, etc., A. H. Maude. , I April 15.