"CIVIS" AND PROHIBITION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3395, 9 April 1919, Page 23

"CIVIS" AND PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOHSib, —"Oivis" has seen good reason to avoid comment upon my letter, and to confine himself to certain irrelevancies and a quotation or two. When he has read this, he may wish that he had stuck to irrelevanciesi and left quotation severely alone. Someone has teen guilty of a flagrant literary forgery, and it will be for " Civis" to explain. In Passing Notes o£ Saturday Last, in the hebdomadal attack upon prohibition, is the following: I repeat that from the dancing dervish point of view the Bible is- a book to- be shunned. The same holds of all other authorities, sacred or profane. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, tor instance, a witness competent and impartial—article "Liquor Laws" (edition of 1911):

"American experience is an impressive warning against the folly of trying to coerce the personal babita of a large section of the population against their will; —what suffer* is the principle of law itself, which is brought into disrepute." The sentence is a gross perversion of the text from which it purports to be taken. My indictment stands thus: (1) There is no such sentence- in the article on, " Liquor Law" in. the Encyclopaedia Britanniea as that alleged' by " Civis."

(2) The only part of that article which bears the remotest resemblance to the alleged quotation is that part dealing with the liquor laws in the State of lowa, one only out of the 48 States. 43) The alleged quotation has been created by (a) taking the second half of one sentence and prefixing the words "American experience" (which do not appear in the article at all); (b) omitting the two following sentences; (c) adding the fourth sentence as an integral part of the mutilated portion quoted. It is a perfect illustration of Tennyson's "lie which is half a truth," and "is ever the blackest of lies."

(4) The part of the article so dishonestly dealt with shows that at the time of writing lowa- was not under prohibition—that the '' forty years' struggle '■ hi this State between prohibition agitation and the natural appetites of mankind" ended' "in a sort of compromise in which the.coercive principle is preserved in one' law and personal liberty vindicated by & contradictory etc. The " principle •of law "' suffers-,, not from prohibition, but from this curious legislative bungle. On the subject of prohibition "Civis" appears to be simply ignorant. He knows nothing of the result of scientific research during recent years: . His. obsession is formed upon the exploded fallacies of a past generation. Even an amateurish acquaintance with the standard 1 works on psychology would be sufficient to correct the ludicrous notion that human mentality is the product of, or is aided in its development by, alcohol. He quotes for this Samuel Butler (not a psychologist) who wrote 40 or' 50 years ago, and who, in "Life and Habit" says. "My friends, have complained to me that they can never tell whether I am in jest or earnest." The insolence of this anonymous scribe will be realised when it is remembered that the supporters of the prohibition cause include the majority of the Anglican bishops in New Zealand, practically the whole of the ministers of all the churches except the Roman Catholic, a large proportion of business and professional men, leaders of the Labour Party, etc. It is of these men "Civis" says that they must shun the Bible and all literature sacred and profane! Colossal! —I am, etc., Dunedin, April 7. Alex. S. Adams.

[l..e passage In the Encyclopaedia Britannica is contained in that portion of the article on Liquor Laws which relates to States prohibition in. the United. States. After a reference to the introduction of prohibition in other States the writer of the article says: "In lowa, which, eas-ly adopted a Erohibitory law, still nominally in force, a iw, known as the mulct law, was passed in 1894 for taxing the trade and practically legalising it under conditions. The story of the forty years' struggle in this State between the prohibition agitation and the natural appetites of mankind is exceedingly instructive; it is an extraordinary i - evelation of political intrigue and tortuous proceedings, and an impressive warning against the folly of trying to coerce the personal habits of a large section of the population against their will. It ended in a sort of compromise, in which the coercive principle is preserved in one law and personal liberty vindicated by another contradictory one. The result may be satisfactory, but it might be attained in a less expensive maimer. What suffers is the principle of law itself which is brought into disrepute."—Ed. O. W.]