Opunake Parliamentary Union.

Opunake Times, Volume III, Issue 119, 23 August 1895, Page 2

Opunake Parliamentary Union.

The was a good muster at the fortnightly meeting of the Parliamentary Union on Wednesday evening, the ladies’ gallery being well filled. Mr Guy introduced a Bill, providing that that after January Ist, 1896, “It shall not be lawful to import, manufacture, or sell any spirituous liquors in the Colony.” In introducing the measure he referred to the evil effects produced by drunkenness. It filled the gaols, produced poverty, and generally was of a debasing nature. He contended that the only way to cure the evil was by placing the temptation beyond reach. He dwelt on the opinion expressed by the late Judge Richmond, and considered that such an opinion should carry great weight. Mr Flynn seconded the motion.

Mr W. F. Robinson followed, opposing prohibition in a jocular strain, contending that a great number of the evils and crimes attributed to the drink traffic should not be debited to that account at all. Indulgence in fermented liquors had existed for a very long time, and was very likely to continue. In the State of Maine, where prohibition was the law, drunkenness was reputed to be very common. He did not agree with the proposal. Mr Goodacre, who was received with applause, said he would like members to treat the matter seriously, because it was the greatest question of the age. He quoted a number of statistics to show how crime and drink went hand in hand. They had got a communication from the Chief Gaoler of the Colony, who gave it as his opinion that 90 per cent of the inmates of the gaols had fallen into crime through drink. Some objected to prohibition because, they argued, it was interfering with the liberty of the subject, but he contended that they had prohibition now in many respects. In the first place, every one in Opunake was prohibited from selling liquor excepting two. By-laws were passed prohibiting pigs from being kept in a borough or town ; restrictions were placed on many trades, which was prohibition,; laws were passed to prevent people following their evil inclinations, and that was prohibition ; so that if they were logical they must admit they had an equal right to pass a law prohibiting a man from indulging in the crime of drunkenness. It was suggested that the traffic should be regulated. The law professed to regulate it now, but it was a failure. They did not wish to do away with hotels, which were very necessary for the convenience of the travelling public, but they wanted to stop them selling liquor. He contended from statistics furnished that prohibition in Maine had greatly decreased drinking, and that where it was carried on was in the slums, and secretly in out-of-the-way places, which he considered an advantage as respectable people were not then offended by it. Mr Bailey quoted statistics to show that prohibition was not required, as drinking habits were on the decrease andNewZealandwasnotedas the most sober country in the civilised world. Drinking on the sly was not commendable ; better if a man wanted a drink to let him go in publicly and have it. Mr W. McLeod was in favor of prohibition, because as long as the temptation and surroundings were there people would indulge their evil inclinations. He cited instances with which he had become acquainted of the wrecks which had been produced in promising lives by means of drink. Mr G. W. Rogers opposed it on the grounds that it was interfering with the rights of the subject. If people wished to take a glass of liquor he did not see why a stopper should be put on them. He did not see how they could definitely say that 90 per cent of the 2168 persons in gaols had come there through dpink ; if they, however, admitted that statement to be correct, then it would follow that the other 10 percent were prohibitionists, which he thought was a large percentage. He could not see any analogy between the supposed cases of .prohibition by means of laws to punish crime, and the prohibition proposed in the Bill. He also noticed that the leading lights of tlpe teipperance movement always struck a bee line for the coipforts of the best hotels when they were travelling and carefully eschewed temperance boarding houses. After Messrs Guy and Goodacre had replied the question was put, but the voting was confined to the members of the Union. It was declared lost by a majority of two to one. A heaty vote of thanks was accorded Mr Goodacrp for the trouble and inconvenience he had been put to to attend, and also for the very interesting address and information supplied.