THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19333, 20 November 1924, Page 8

THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

TO. THE EDITOR. Sib, — “ Liberty ”is an enthusiastic pussyfoot, and must be given all due credit. Of all the scribes on the bone-dry theory lie is, indeed, the most amusing paradox. ‘His admiration for America is so amazing that it is difficult how so intolerant an advocate of coercion manages to tolerate a land reeking with alcohol. ! " Liberty does occasionally vibrate a correct chord, and in writing that “ with the average Christian the expense of improving the morals, health, rnd happiness of a people is not usually considered,” he shows marked signs of improvement. I wonder if America regards the enforcement of prohibition from that celestial angle or from the purely economic and arbitrary standpoint? Personally methinks that “ Liberty's ” average Christian does not dwell in the enforcement camp of prohibitionist America, and the sooner “ Liberty ” ceases to confuse the Cross with the golden calf the sooner will he be able to understand his American spiritual home. If all the balderdash that he serves up were true it woitld not necessarily follow that the legislaton which suits a nation of so mixed and varied a-people ! would suit New Zealand, any more than if the Arab took to drink he would morally and mentally dominate the Jew. The_ Turk supplies another case where total abstinence has not produced a people 1 to be proud of. One could rrgue thus indefinitely, and yet get nowhere, for what is food to one is poison to another. I would gladly forego what pleasure I derive from drink if I could believe that by voting prohibition I would emancipate my fellowman, but 1 realise that real human progress is not founded on liberty-interfering and coercive institutions, bu,t is achieved through the slow, sure, and highly Christian process of character-building from within. I have no wish to bo rude, but after reading the letters signed " Liberty” and other letters that have from time to time questioned the anpropriateness of that writer’s nom de plume, I have with difficulty fathomed its meaning as the prohibitionists’ liberty to take a liberty with other people’s liberty.—l am. etc., H. E. Childs. Kurow, November 17 is such a lack of common sense in the letter of noth Scholium, and •’Debarked” that their fwn folly is their sufficient answer. But there is one question 1 tsk them; If the drink traffic should be maintained, would they and "Givis " be willing to have the hotels in which liquor is sold placed alongside their residences?—! am, £ tc Enquirer. November 18.