THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20582, 4 December 1928, Page 10

THE PROHIBITION ISSUE.

TO the editor. sjoUr» 5 j OUr » ? rol » b ition apoloThorn ; H CW ca ? i 1 '^ er ’ admitting that thoic is some reason in my letters Lnt fn°r‘ ;V 1 Ca “ l M t r f turn th ° complifm f’lhß „ni (f° n ] las bee , n sad] y lacking lor the nn!i CS s 0 £ ar ‘ ,n f - act > they have! ° „ U 1 ~l nost part, consisted of wild tion eg lin a r tl n IlS ' wlnc , h l lofc , on ly lack convicto iavG lnd IC f n SO i • ob '’ l 9 usl y misleading as 10 nave led to his being twice corrected othp? U n fo °tnotes for the misquoting of othei pcopte s (or paper’s statements to suit Ins weak case. This deliberate mal. praoliee on Ins part surely discredits him 1, * eye ?, oi y°nr readers, and again illustrates the peculiar mentality of this -irresponsible “dry" faddist. V J,; r sur cl.y a sign of weakness when jour disappointed correspondent so openly and brazenly resorts to this wretched S e Srt« ?£ i bo!Btei ' ins i Up J , lis fadil, S ca "MIt ceitamly pioves how hard pressed he must be in his extremity. ■ His persistency rUwr n" r ith hc quotation from the Christian Centuyr is indeed amusing, for who could possibly expect to find anything a*journal? lq "° r i,ltfil ' ests in suc§ Todd u° nder ,° U }’ P ,d friend M r Charles lodd has rushed into the fray to Ixelp ns dry brothers in their wail'ing efforts to oxplam rtway their recent setoack on the licensing vote. There was surely need for mnforceinents. Fancy Mr Todd, of all men, quoting Cheerio in support of his dry cause. Surely the Cheerio people must bo amused at this “dry” compliment. It certainly proves that if has its uses. This stalwart “dry” gladiator then goes on to quote, once more the number of States that voted for Mr Hoover. 'Uhat a pity |Mr Todd so boldly claims the Hoover victory was entirely due to the eighteenth amendment clause. A widely travelled man like Mr Todd, with his personal knowledge of the many comprehensive issues connected -with the recent American election, must surely be allowing his disappointment over the crushing setback the prohibition cause received here recently to play havoc with his usual sound reasoning. Why does Mr Todd not state quite candidly what he must know to be the case, that there were many economic issues involved in the*presidential election. Why do not Mr Todd and his brother “ dry ”, extremists refer to the result of the recent referendum on the liquor question in New South. Wales? Why pass by this recent decision of the voters in a nearby British State? These people have just given their clear-cut mandate with no uncertain voice upon this liquor issue, which was thrust upon them. Surely a British example is of more moment to us than an American one. Surely our " dry ” friends are not avoiding the decision in New South Wales because it was such an emphatic negative to the prohibition movement? In any case why cannot our- “dry” friends admit their defeat in a manly fashion’, instead of/ wailing and moaning about in the public press? Look n* Mie splendid example set them by Archbishop Averill in his last monthly staienn.lll; vo the Auckland diocese, in which lie states that the best friends of prohibition must realise the cause has received a serious setback, and that from it seems that prohibition will not be carried in our generation. “For that reason,” Archbishop Averill says, “ surely it would be better to try for the proverbial half-loaf —further reforms such as th£ abolition of tied houses, the conversion of bars into open restaurants, and the prohibition of spirits, except under medical orders.” Surely a reasonable viewpoint from a reasonable-minded man, who desires to reconstruct, rather than destroy, an industry which already exists in our midst in a very definite sense. Why cannot our disappointed “ dry ” extremist friends get in behind moderate-minded folk like Archbishop Averill and help to reorganise a trade that caters not only for the residents of these delightful little sea-girt isles of ours, but also for the ever-in-creasing number of visitors and tourists from near and far. who can rightly be expected in our midst? —I am, etc., X Y 7 X

TO THE EDITOR. Snt, —With reference to a footnote to my Tetter in your Saturday's issue, the best thanks are due to you for publishing almost the full text of the cables referred to. Even then one important phrase was left out—viz., “ From a wealth of national editorial comment explaining Mr Smith's defeat, a leading article in The West. Virginia Banister is the most interesting, etc.” That would have considerably strengthened the - contentions of my letter. Consideration of your space was- the main reason for not quoting the cabins in full in the first place, and, second, as there was no contention in the litter that prohibition was the sole issue in the elections, there was no need to quote references to anything else. I have, however, just cause for serious protest that the first part of your footnote is, first, unfairly stretched to score a point; and, second, quite incorrect. What was written in the letter (not as printed), was—“ The Melbourne Age reports the West Virginia Banister as saying," etc. My letter made it quite clear —“These newspapers "—that it was the press which was quoted. Next you say: “The quotation was from the West Virginia Advertiser.” T cannot understand where you get.this. Sir. The Age did not say so. My quotation from the columns, of that paper was word for word, as therein stated, as verified at the Library. Further, Sir, one does feel, somewhat flattered that in two following letters you on both occasions thought fit to use your editorial pen, in a motherly way, to come to the help of your liquor correspondents. Evidently they are still “on the bottle.” Lastly, Sir, the liquor interests officially have asserted that “ Prohibition was not a factor in the American Presidental election. On .the other hand the cables for months before, and since the election, have given it as a “ most important factor.” No doubt when the mail news arrives this matter will be demonstrated beyond question.—l am, etc., New Zealander.

[Our correspondent is most disingenuous. He says that there was no contention in his letter on Saturday that prohibition was the sole issue jn the Presidential election. When he wrote to us on November .7 upon the result of the election becoming known, he quoted from a prohibition publication in the United States the. statement that the election was “ a national referendum on ‘wet’ and ‘ dry ’ issues, and he himself asserted that the people of the States had “given a decisive verdict in favour of, the ' dry ’ law.” That has been the burden of his subsequent letters to us, and, as it controverted the view which, on the most reliable authority, we have expressed on the subject wo have thought it necessary to justify our position against that which hp has assumed. The assurance which he now has tire temerity to offer that it was out of consideration for our space that he did not quote in full the cables cited by him in. his ! lost letter is too flimsy ’to be seriously considered. The omissions were in each instance unfavourable, and more or lees destructive, to his argument, To. profess to quote a statement and deliberately to omit from it references that tend to vitiate, the case that is being set up is not honest controversy. “New Zealander ” now accuses us of inaccuracy in the footnote to his Inst letter. The point, is almost too trivial to mention, but the inaccuracy, as might be expected, is on his part. The cable message respecting which he has been at the pains to consult the Melbourne Age in the Public Library appeared'in Otago Daily Times, the cable service in the New Zealand press embracing the best of the services that are supplied to the Australian papers. There is no paper called the West Virginia Banistbr, as New Zealander” seems to suppose. Wc did not say the quotation made by “ New Zealander ” was from the West Virginia Advertiser. What we said was that it was from the West Virginia' Register, the carelessness respecting facts which New Zealander ” exhibits to this particular seems to be characteristic of nim. —fin. O.D.T.J