THE PROHIBITION ISSUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18549, 9 May 1922, Page 2

THE PROHIBITION ISSUE

DISCUSSED BY ANGLICAN SYNOD. <Fbom Ode Own Cobeespondent.) AUCKLAND, May 6. The debate on the prohibition . question was continued at the" session ' of the ninth Anglican, General Synod this afternoon. The Primate {Archbishop Julius) presided. The matter was raised on Thursday afternoon by Archdeacon Chatterton (Waipu), who had moved as follows:—“Tha.t--.in.view of the fact that alcohol is recognised as responsible for many of the moral and physical, evils that-are in the world to-day-and that it is the ibminden duty of the church to 'definitely associate itself with ■ the efforts to combat those evils, this Synod calls upon members of the church (a) to exercise the Sacred duty of voting, at the next referendum in spoil a way as to place the moral interests of ■ the ■ community before any personal interest or consideration, and (b) to recognise the duty of combating the evil of intemperance by personal example and , willing self-sacrifice,” ' y ‘ The Trimate said he did not like the resolution as it was too colourless. Of course; ■ it meant prohibition although it did not say so. He thought that a resolution by the General Synod should have more strength and vigour. They could not, however, throw out the resolution without finding something to take its place. He therefore moved as an amendment: ‘‘That this 'Synod, exoresses its strong conviction, that it 'is the, bounden duty of Christian people, unless they' are ' prepared to _ vote for the' total prohibition of; the. .liquor traffic, to provide some other drastic remedy for an evil'which, is sapping the morals and efficiency of the .community.” Continuing, the Primate said that the Synod not say that they were anti-prohibition and let the devil have his way. They wanted Christian people to find the right remedy. He had never asked his Diocesan Synod to make a direct pronouncement on this question, which he considered a political one. -He thought-1 his amendment expressed the mind of the Svnod. Whatever members thought of the prohibition situation they werq bound to join in some remedy for an evil that was producing vast injury to the community. Dean Fitchett {Dunedin) - skid he would suppdrt the Primate’s amendment, as they would be very glad to have a reconstruction of the whole drink traffic if it was to continue. ' ' .* Bishop Richards (Dunedin) said he had never voted for prohibition—a terrible confession in the eyes' of. some people. It prohibition were carried they would -be issuing a challenge to' tens of thousands to break a law which they regarded as unjust. Mr C. J. Tunks said the question of vested interests and the profits made out of liquor were at the root of the evil. He would like to know where, the Church stood-on the question. He gave notice to. move: “That'therp being only two issues in regard to the liquor traffic before the country, prohibition and continuance, in the_ opinion of this Synod the total prohibition of the liquor traffic .is necessary in the moral and materiel interests of the whole community.'” ' ; ' : Bishop- Averill said he thought it was necessary to have a’strong, statement on the position lest outsiders should think that the church was trying tb burk the question. They were bound to face the problem and give a very decided -lead on it. He had Sways voted for prohibition, although he did not-, agree that it was the ideal' solution of the - quosrtion, regarding'if as the best they were likely' to. get. They could not separate - the' religious ’and 'soOial questions from the political questions' involved in the issue, and- jt would - be' cowardly to do so. To his mind the Synod would be perfectly right in saying what it thought about prohibition. , The -Primate* remarked that he was very much afraid of the'effect of : putting a - direct question to an unregenerate' General Synod, some of whorp were - converted add" some not. Ho would not like it to gq out that the Synod was opposed to prohibition. Archdeacon Chatterton asked leave to withdraw his motion' in favour of the Primate’s amendment. - This was defeated; on ’ the voices, v Bishop Sprott- (Wellington)' said that' if it was of any interest be would tell them that he was not a total--abstainer; ■ Hewould, however, vote fori prohibition as he ; did the last time, not because he regarded it; as a final settlement of the question—for he believed in some form' of public coritrol—but because he believed ■ that no better system could be brought’in 'until the present system had been swept- away. ; was a question, however, whether it' was wise for any legislative body to- pass resolutions which it could not enforce, as the people would develop the habit ■ of ignoring its enactments. , A. number of members having expressed their views, the Primate intimated that it was desired to get -a decision before the adjournment, otherwise the discussion would have to remain over until Monday. It was decided on the voices -that the Primate’s amendment be substituted for Archdeacon Chatterton’s motion. This then became the substantive motion. , A proposal was. then . brought forward proposing to substitute Mr Tunks’s amendment for the Primate’s motion. This was declared lost on the voices, and on a division being called for it was declared lost -by 27 votes to 19, The Primate's motion was then carried.