Prohibition.

Opunake Times, Volume II, Issue 71, 8 March 1895, Page 2

Prohibition.

REV. L. M. ISITT'S LECTURE. The Rev. L. M. Isitt delivered his lecture on the drink traffic in the Town Hall on Tuesday evening to an attendance of about 150, some of whom had come long distances to hear him. Mr J. Pennington occupied the chair and introduced the lecturer in a few happily chosen words. The reverend lecturer, before commencing his subject, referred to the rapid growth of Opunake since he was last here, when the town consisted of one hotel, the A.C. camp, and oue or two cottages, the rest of the now flourishing township being then occupied by flax-bushes and pigs. He noticed there were now two palatial hotels in the place, and he. regretted the extension which had taken place in this direction. They must have cost a lot of money to build, and must require a large income to keep them going. He did not suppose this was provided by the bona fide travelling public, aud therefore one of two things was very clear : There must be either a tremendous profit on what was sold, or the people here must be a very thirsty lot. He described the drink traffic as the " vilest fiend of all," but this term was not the creation of the prohibitionists, as it was also the theme of a poem by New Zealand's poet, Mr Thomas Bracken, who afterwards became secretary of the New Zealand Brewers' Association, which was organised to conibat the temperance fanatics, of whom, the lecturer stated, he was one. He here recited the poem, which forcibly portrayed the evil effect of drunkenness, aud prayed that New Zealand might be rescued from its curse. He had 50,000 copies of the poem reprinted and circulated, and then Mr Bracken stated that it had been written in his young days, and his after thought had made him change his opinion. Well, he would not be hard on him. He did not come there to attack wine, spirits, &c, and give no one a chanee to contradict him, as anyone, at any time during or after his lecture, was at perfect liberty to contradict any statement made by him which was considered absurd or untrue, and he would sit down and attentively listen. He therefore asked any opponents to have the courage of their opinions, and come forward publicly and uphold their contentions, and not reserve their arguments for the publichouses and bars, where they might boast that they could have " flattened him out," but that they did not like to because he was a parson. Never mind him being a parson, but go for his platform if they thought they had auy case. The licensed liquor traffic the lecturer described as " the dirtiest, most contemptible, and most diabolical" in the world. In Great Britain 27 millions were spent annually in charity, 17 millions in education, and 137 millions in drink. In some of the poorest and most squalid parts of London, there was one publichouse to every 157 men, women, and children, and Dr Richardson, the temperance advocate, claimed that 120,000 were annually slaughtered by drink. Mr Chamberlain, who was not a temperance advocate, made out a worse case still, as he stated that one in twenty of the whole population were either impaired in health or destroyed by it. In the whole civilised world, four hundred thousand millions were annually spent in drink, and when it was contemplated the harm one gallon could do, even if people "were satisfied prohibition was the greatest fad, would they not do something to save the 1£ millions annually destroyed by this cursed traffic. New Zealand stands in the front rank of sober nations, if not the foremost, and what had brought this about? Was it the moderate drinkers ? No. It was the leatherlunged teetotallers ,by precept and example. It was asserted that, if under proper supervision, purer liquor were sold, there would not be so much harm done, and some congratulated themselves that New Zealand was so sober, but he could not see anything to congratulate themselves on whilst the liquor traffic continued. Mr Lewison, an advocate of the liquor traffic, had accused him of being a libeller of the country, and that there really was no drunkenness in the country. They had prepared a roll of newspaper clippings, which measured 46 yards, and invited Mr Lewison to come and check it, but he had not done so. In 1894 the newspapers had recorded a drink tragedy for every second day in the year, and In 1895, so far, a drink tragedy for every day. In one week in Christchurch there were three deaths attributable to drink. It was then asserted that the newspapers exaggerate, but such was not the case. The reverse was the case. Go a round of the cemeteries, and one would find tombstones with beautiful passages of Scripture applying to those lying beneath them, but they were lies. The inscriptions should be, " slain by drink !" The lecturer gave a number of instances in which various causes were given for death by the newspapers, in every one of which he had ascertained that the cause was drink. People were often sceptical about the terrible effects of drink, but let them look at the children in the ragged schools, 95 per cent, of whom were the victims of drunken parents. Dr Barnardo, of whom they had all heard, found that 85 per cent, of the children in his rescue homes were those of parents addicted to drink, If the children made destitute by drunken parents in Great Britain were ranged four abreast, they would reach 100 miles, The non-fanatical moderate drinker declined to give up his glass of liquor because others abuse it, and they looked benignly on the teetotaller, whom they regarded as a fanatic, but let them regard the results of drink, and they must realise that they were in a great measure the cause of it. The women were sometimes blamed for causing the tragedies resulting

from drunkenness because not humor their husbands when tn%fcame home the worse for liquor, but Nflrald the men treat the women in any jStfeer manner if the tables were twrietf; .It > was claimed that the traffic contributed half a million^to-the revenue, but he would point out that they had to pay two millions a year, and' probably more, for the luxury of gaining this revenue. Then they had to spend £300,000 in charitable aid, whicn waa mainly attributable to the vile traffic, besides the costs of gaols, lunatic asylums, and other institutions, 1 which were principally filled by recruits from the drunkards' rauks. It was said that they did not want prohibition; wliat they wanted was the traffic regulated. Who, he asked, was to re-' gulate it ? Teetotallers were looked on as " molly coddles" who drank butter-milk, and if they had their way they would sweep all the publichouses away. If none * .but drunkards frequented the houses, it would be equally effective "in sweeping them away, as public opinion would not stand the nuisance. It was therefore the moderate drinkers who supported the traffic, and it was for them to regulate it. They, however, had not the backbone in them to do it. It waa only parsons, or red-hot teetotallers, who had the courage to come along and advocate sweeping the cursed traffic off the face of the earth. The purveyors of drink were masters of the situation, and no policeman dare his duty faithfully. If he did, he would, under present circumstances, ■most certainly lose his position. It was, he claimed, an impossibility to regulate the traffic. Alcohol was a drug which possessed a most mysterious power, by which it created a craving for itself. On the other hand, it was admitted that generations came into life with hereditary appetites for it, and it was beyond their power to resist. The only way, then, it eduld be. regulated was to take the mysterious power out of the drug, or remove the hereditary appetite, but as neither of these were possible, then the only course left was to sweep it away, and this could only be effected by prohibition. As loug as alcohol remained, it mattered not whether it was drunk out of a pewter pot or a silver flagon —its evil effects were there all ihe same. Let the people brew cider or beer if they like, and drink as much as they please, but do not allow one-: pennyworth to be sold. What prohibitionists ask is that the whole power should be put in the hands of the people! If, in the ballot-box, they say they require publichouses in any distriet, give them a hundred if they want them; if, on the contrary, they say in the ballotbox they do not want them, let there be none. If Mr Seddon. offered the colony a prohibition act, prohibitionists say they would not have it, because being forced on the people, disaster would be sure to follow it. The people must be educated to it, and then give them local option. He admitted and claimed that the majority should rule one way or the other, The publicans had gone to Mr Seddon and threatened him, stating that one out of every seventeen was associated or connected with the liquor traffic, and that a majority desired its retention, whilst only a small band of leatherlunged teetotallers desired prohibition. Leather-lungs do not count in the ballot-box: it is only vote 3 which count there; and if the publicans were sure of such a majority, why use' the threat? The reason was, they had been weighed and found wanting. When licensing was in the hands of the Magistrates, they never found a publichouse up against a mansion. No! It was too loathsome for that. Then why should not others be protected from such contamination? give the people the right to in the ballot-box, and those advocating prohibition would be satisfied. The reverend lecturer resumed his seat amidst enthusiastic applause. The Chairman stated that the lecturer would then answer any questions that might be put, but there were none forthcoming. A vote of thanks was given to the lecturer, and the customary compliment to the chair terminated the proceedings.