THE PROHIBITION HERESY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18656, 11 September 1922, Page 9

THE PROHIBITION HERESY

Sre,—l notice that my protest has provoked some criticisms which, with your permission, I shall endeavour to answer. The first which appeared was from A Boy’s Mother,” and to her I lift my hat. I am sure that we will part very good friends when I have explained to her that the two instances of an abrogation of our liberty, which she cites, are entirely m accord with my contention, that moderation in all things” is the ideal to aim at. . We are prohibited from ‘‘driving past a school at a fast rate and alighting from a tramoar while it is in motion. Quite right; that is just what I also say, ", r * ve slowly.” But the prohibitionist says, Because you might injure a child, we oanno permit you to drive a car at all”; and while sensible, moderate men enact that pasJ senders must not alight from a tramcar in motion,” the prohibitionist says, \ ‘‘Because you might fall off a car while in motion, we cannot permit you to travel in a oar at all.” „ , It will interest "A Bov’s Mother to hear that not long after the last licensing poll I was visiting an old friend's house, when the mother mentioned, in the course of conversation, that she had voted for prohibition. I asked her why ? She said, “To save my two boys from being placed in temptation.” I then remonstrated with her very earnestly, as 1 loved her - boys and asked her whether she was justified in depriving me and many other men of these good gifts and also depriving her own boys of them when they had reached manhood, just because she was afraid that they might go to excess? Would she not be doing her duty as their mother much better if she taught her boys true temperance in all things, and a proper appreciation of the ideals of manhood? >'6 never touched upon this subject again till a few days ago, when the present correspondence brought up this subject. She then told me that, although she had supported prohibition on the last, occasion, she would not do so again. It had not occurred to her then to think how it might affect other men, and furthermore, she now felt that she could trust in her boys’ selfcontrol. Now, this mother has chosen the better part; she is building upon the solid rock of character, not upon the shifting sands of ineffective legislation. ‘‘Father of Only Three” refers to the Business Men’s Efficiency League. I have not its recommendations before me and may revert to this matter later. He is, however, a very poor judge of character, if, after reading my letter, he can say that if one of my children should become a victim of drink, I would become “the staunchest prohibitionist in our midst.” No, sir, if all of them should fall (which God forbid !) I would not consider myself justified in prohibiting a single person except these specific victims, but I would, in all probability, myself set them an example of total abstinence. I might also be induced to take the latter course if I were living in such a besotted community that I felt that a supreme effort was needed to combat this vice, but surely no man in his senses can advance such a plea in New Zealand. Another correspondent offers me a gratuitous insult by suggesting that I have “more than a passing interest in the liquor traffic.” I ask him to read again the last paragraph of my letter, then to take up a clean pen, wash his hands, and, if he has ■ any decency in him, apologise to me. I never once referred to the liquor traffic in my letter. If the supporters of prohibition were to abandon their heresy and direct their efforts towards further reform in the sale of intoxicants I should be with them wholeheartedly. Now I come to the letter of the Rev. I. Sarginson. Mr Sarginson is totally unknown to me, but as he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of prohibition, I assume him to be one of the clerical leaders of the movement. It is to ttiese clerics that my reference to prohibition as a "heresy,” is particularly directed. Your correspondent airily asserts that my case is weak. We shall see. It is highly diverting to read his further assertion that “my perspective is all out,” followed as it is by such a lurid picture of the effect of intoxicating drink that one' is left with the impression that there is only one mainspring of evil in this world and that is intoxicating drink. Where is your correspondent’s perspective ? Drunkenness is on record since the time of Noah, and is often referred to in the Old Testament, yet in the Ten Commandments, which were given to Moaes, it is not oven mentioned. St. Paul enumerates the works of the flesh as “adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders. drunkenness, revellings, ana each like;” In thig formidable list, drunkenness takes only sixteenth place. Have we so far overcome all the other vices that the clerics of to-day are justified to concentrate their main effort against this one vice of excess, and not solely against the vice of excess, but against the moderate use of intoxicating drink?—Against which not one word of condemnation can be found in the whole Bible! I ask again where is your correspondent’s perspective? It will be noticed that . “heresies” are enumerated in the above list and we are justified in placing the prohibition heresy among those* “divers'and strange doctrines” against which the Apostle specially warns us. I am not going to spare the feelings of the fanatical clerics or of those pettyminded. petticoated followers, whom they have so woefully misguided and doped. I challenge them on their own ground. Either prohibition can be justified from the Gospels and should be adopted as a plank in the Christian’s platform, or it cannot be justified from the Gospels, and as a heresy should be discountenanced bv the teachers of Christianity. I challenged Mr Hammond to produce his warrant from the Bible, but he conveniently took no notice of mv challenge. Neither did Mr Sarginson. I now repeat it to Mr Sarginson and to the whole council of the New Zealand Alliance. The fight is for a very high stake, for our priceless inheritance—our liberty. The prohibitionists propose to suppress the con-sul-notion of intoxicants, which have been freely used bv mankind since the dawn of civilisation They propose to do this by the vote of a bare majority, of which, as far as we know, four-fifths are women, many of whom have never tested the benefits to be derived from the moderate use of wine or ale. They assume that the, bare maiority. of whom as far as we know four-fifths are "men, and of whom all but an insignificant percentage use intoxicants in moderation and to their benefit, will quietly accept such a deadly verdict. Can any sane man or woman think that such a tremendous, revolution, such a paralysing shock, will act mainly beneficially on our people? If it does not bring very much greater evils in , its train, then all past experience in such i exnerimmts is valueless. ; To take a prominent place in such a bitter and deadly conflict, there clerics must hold a mandate from the BiWe, and I ask them again to produce it. If they cannot produce it. then let them get out of it and pet back to their proper work. They have enough to do to fight the good fight against the seventeen sins which St. Paul enumerates, and which do not include the moderate use of intoxicants. If thev cannot produce their mandate, let their Christian Tern, perance Unions and Bands o‘f Hope teach and promote true temperance and not a degrading heresy. A certoin type of cleric prefers to take the easy road, the line of least resistance, and. instead iof toiling earnestly for the cultivation of,.the high ideals of our Saviour, invokes the aid of the Legislature to manufacture Christians by an Act of Parliament for his especial benefit In justice to the bulk of the Catholic and Anglican clergy, I must exclude these, and quite a few others. 1 from being followers of this hateful, antiChristian heresy.—l am. etc., Father of Eight. Maori Hill, September 10.

Sir, —Your correspondent “Father of Eight” has spoken for a large number of people besides himself. I know he has expressed my sentiments and those of many of my friends who would not care to live' in a country where even to make wine for one’s own use or to aid anyone to do so would mean running the risk of a fine of 7 £IOO for the first offence and imprisonment for three months in the case of a second or subsequent offence. See section 62 of the Licensing Amendment Act of 1918, which says that at all times, while no licenses exist in New Zealand, it shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession (for the purposes of sale) or to import into New Zealand, or to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquor of any description. The word “manufacture” is not qualified by the_ words “for purposes of sale, .so that it_ is perfectly plain that, under the prohibition law, one cannot make wine or beer for one’s own household without breaking the law and having to pay severely for doing so. Subsection 4 of this section (62) distinctly states that the penalties for breaches of the law cover importing, manufacturing, selling, or having in possession for purposes of sale. How muob one may be allowed to stock is not stated, but I should think it unlikely that the rich man would be allowed to put in sufficient for a lifetime. It is hardly likely that no regulation would be made to prevent this, otherwise it would be a case of one law for the rich and another for

the poor. The onus of proof that a man held a stock, only for his own use, would lie upon himself, and no doubt this woula be tested in court, and some decision arrived at as to what was sufficient. The man who thinks he can stock as much as ho likes provided he uses it in his own household may, therefore, soon find himself sadly disillusioned. As has been said before, the carrying out of the law will produce an army of spies, who will certainly not respect the- rich man’s household. —I am, etc., No Coercion.