PROHIBITION

Otago Witness, Issue 3584, 21 November 1922, Page 63

PROHIBITION

ANGLICAN SYNOD DEBATE. . Yhe discussion on tlie prohibition question was resumed in the Anglican Synod on Wednesday, Bth inst. The discussion was opened the previous afternoon by Mr S. F. Whitcoinbe, who moved —“That this synod desires church people to vote >n favour of prohibition.” Bishop Richards presided. Archdeacon Russell, who had been seconding the motion when the ad journment, came, resumed the debate, anil continued hearing testimony as to the practical success of no-license in Oamaru. In the last year of license there were 156 arrests for drunkenness there as against 23 arrests fast year. Last year there were no eases of sexual offences in Oamaru. He could also give them remarkable evidence of the financial prosperity of the district. Kxcept one last year there had been no bankruptcy there under no-license. The borough of Oamaru lost in iicense fees when no-license was carried, but instead of that meaning increase of taxation the Borough Council reduced the rates by 3d and had never had to increase them. Their revered father, the Dean, hail written most weighty words that had been published in “Cheerio” and “The Case for Continuance” to show that a Christian man could vote for the continuance of the liquor

traffic according t-o his conscience. He hoped the day would come when the Dean, who was like St. Paul among them, would, like St. Paul, vet so alter his views as to confess that once he did many things “contrary to the name of Christ.” He quoted examples of men of standing who w . er . e . coming t<y acknowledge that the prohibition of the liquor traffic was the only effective way to deal with it. The principle of the love of God was gradually leading men to see first that polygamy must go then that slavery and now that the liquor traffic must go. St. Paul gave them the principle in his words: “Judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” Christ has opportunity of dealing with the licensed trade of buying and selling in the Temple, and twice he flouted the authority given the traders and drove them from the temple. Self-interest and selfishness was the root of the liquor movement There was also the motive of selfindulgence, and numbers of people would vote against prohibition because they would note give up that indulgence. Archdeacon RU3sell drew attention to the seriousness of the decision the synod was about the make. Some of them might have been sheltered from seeing the evils of the traffic, but he doubled very much if nny of their social workers would oppose the motion. In Oamaru they used in proportion only one ninth of the liquor used in license districts. The conditions were infinitely better, and more conducive to the building tip of the Kingdom of God. and under prohibition they would be better still. Dean Fitchett said synod would recognise the moral earnestness of the mover and seconder of the resolution. With them it was a matter of conscience. Others of them intended to vote against the resolution and against prohibition, and with them also it was a matter of conscience. It was a matter of conscience, and for that reason it should not have been brought into that synod.- (“Hear, hear.”) Archdeacon Russell had certainly quoted the precedent of of her conferences in this matter. The ambiguous position of America threw no light on the position, but rather gave warning ITe himself had seconded the motion car- I ried in General Synod, on the ground that they had an alternative to prohibition tn the Gospel of Christ. As to the statement that certain synods had favoured prohibition, lie read from the Thirty-nine Articles on the fallibility of synods. There were always simple souls like the mover and seconder of the motion—(laughter)— v ho favoured the short cut to moral reform. I p to a point they were unanimous. Drunkenness had no apologist in that synod. (“Hear, hear.”) The reason that State control was not a live issue in the campaign was that the prohibition party had thrown room upon it. lie referred to the Carlis'e experiment as a growing success and said it practically cured the evils of the traffic. But the prohibition party would none of it, and went in for a violent reform that would throw half the community into opposition to the lav (Applause.) One liad asked what would Christ do in presence of the liquor traffic to-day. That was a very proper question, and he was prepare d ro stake everything upon the answer to it. The answer was found in asking what did CVirist do in the days of His flesh. Tn the land where lie was incarnate there was liquor in every house. Drunkenness was all around Him hut He relied on (he moral forces of the day. Jle began His ministry bv making vice for a wedding f ea t. and closed it by consecrating tins ‘V cursed tiling.” as ir had been called, as the most sacred memorial of His shed blood. St. Ban! carried this religion into the great heathen world where drunkenness was a crying evil New Zealand was a paragon of sohrietv in comparison. He preached voluntary abstinence, but. not the imposing of abstinence on others as a mean of moral reform. St. Paul rejected thar course. He V.a- much more disposed to follow St. Paul than an American lecturer.—(Applause.) As Christians they were concerned with the moral and spiritual health of the community. not with questions of fianance and economics. Every ( hristian man who went to vote prohibition was saving in effect that Christianity was bankrupt.—(Applause.) buili a reform if accomplished f. i a moment could not. m the' nature of things be perThe" Rev. 11. P«ratn -aid he found it ■ fi lit to speak against Archdeacon Rus- - for no mat among them was admired mure for his sincerity of purpose.---(Ap-plause.) ITe wanted to make it clear that because a man did not favour prohibition 1 ■■ was not then-foie in favour of all Dm ; - - and evils of the liquor traffic. He r, . jewel the-action of General Synod and denied (bar if “faced the question* fearlessly and boldly.” The right to bring this ■ before Synod had been rightly quesIt . clear that the Church of !. nd s e >ple thn ugh'm the diocese were very evenly divided on the subject, and h r ibid- re t tit: alone it was quite beside the : t' 1 to a k them to pass a resolution svb le of their people. T nev recognised th this was entirely a politic;,i ion-.- < Voices: "No!”) He * facts to show that drunkenness n u -h on the decrease in this country (Applans' .) He objected to the motion because he felt that prohibition was contrary to the faith and doctrines and teachings of the Church of England. The

prohibition people would not allow the church to use the weapons at her command. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union had abandoned temperance altogether, and was out wholly for prohibition. He had lived two years on the Continent, where the cafes wore never closed day or night, and he never 'saw a drunken Italian and Spaniard. The only drunken people he saw were British sailors. He believed if everyone who wanted a license was allowed to have one a great many of the evils of drink would disappear. He objected to the Church of England being dragged at the heels either of the prohibition party or of the party that stood for the evils of the liquor traffic. He moved as an amendment—“ That this Synod while emphasising the principles of temperance deprecates attempts to identify the church with any partisan opinion or to ally it with any political party.” Mr .f. Crawford Anderson, who seconded the motion, asked if the church was going to ally itself with either of the great parties into which the community was divided. Was she going to dip her hand into t-be filthy pool of party politics? He protested against his God-given free will treing interfered with.

The Rev. S. J. Cooper said he hoped those who would vote against the motion were as earnest in opposing it as he was in supporting it. He spoke as one of considerable experience in social and slum work, and referred to the Dean's remarks about Carlisle. He knew every street and lane and public house there, and it had been his painful duty to pilot men from those public houses back to the homes where women and children were crying for bread. Mr Cooper, continuing, said he had ample p-roof that anti-prohibitionists in their parishes appreciated the clergy taking a stand that was consistent. Mr S. T. Mirams said the time had arrived when there should bo no half-hearted expression of opinion from the synod. 'Hiey should not be asked to vote on one side or the other, and therefore he supported the amendment. How could thev expect that liquor could be kept out of this country? Mr R, B. Williams said that time and again the synod had declared that it could not, conscientiously vote for prohibition, and he hoped and felt sure it wo-uld not stultify itself on this occasion. tie was heartilyin favour of the amendment. Mi- R. Benthain said we had had local option in New Zealand for the past 30 years, and not one electorate had gone back on no-license. The trade always promised reform just before an election, but it was worse now than ever. Licensees went into tile business solely to make money varidlv. and how could they look for reform in those circumstances? The onlv way thev could give a lesson to the liquor traffic was by prohibiting it altogether. Mr Ij. D. Ritchie said he rose to oppose the amendment. This was a matter of conscience, and so he could not follow the reasoning of those who said it was entirely a political matter. A good deal had been said about intemperance, but he asked what the reverend Dean had ever done in the interests of temperance. The Dean: Preached every Sunday! Ml- Ritchie: I have listened with great pleasure to the Dean, and I have never heard him preach a sermon on temperance. Mr Mirams: You don’t attend regularly enough.

Mr Ritchie said incidentally he attended another fine church ; but he asked what had the church done during the past years in the wav of inculcating temperance and doing away with the abuse of intoxicating liquor? What organisation was there in any parish in their diocese to promote that end? If there was none he ventured to sav the church was not doing what it ' should to combat intemperance. They would not he discussing this question at next synod, because prohibition would be carried. Tic wanted to see every man there either pledged to follow the reform advocated lw so many or pledged to some other method of dealing with the evil. Ho gave notice to move as a further amendment—- " That all the words after ‘that’ be deleted for (he purpose of substituting, ‘thi« synod, recognising the great evils arising from the abuse of spirituous liquors, considers -I the bounden duty' of every churchman either to vote for national prohibition or to actively pursue other steps calculated to effectivelv reduce or remove the evils -in question.’ ” Mr Pa rate’s amendment was twice declared carried on the voices. .Archdeacon Curzon-Siggers called for a division, and drew attention to the fact that the adjournment hour had been reached. Mr Parata ashed for an adjournment of the debate, pointing out that it would give a bad impression to the public if the matter were dropped at that stage. The debate was accordingly adjourned. The first business taken by the Anglican Diocesan Synod on the 9th was consideration of lli S. F. Whit-combe's motion on the prohibition question, and the Rev. H. Parata’s amendment Mr Parata’s amendment was as follows: “That, this Synod while emphasising the principles of temperance deprecates attempts to identify' the church with any partisan opinion or to ally it with any political party.” The Rev. A. C. If. Button spoke a few words in support of the amendment. Mr Parata’s amendment was then put and carried, and Mr L. D. Ritchie moved as a further amendment that all the words after “That.” be deleted and substituted by “This Synod recognising the great, evils arising from the abuse of spirituous liquors considers it: the bounden duty of every churchman either to vote - national prohibition or to actively pursue other slops calculated to effectively reduce or remove the evils in question. Speaking to the amendment Mi Ritchie said that, in opinion there were only two vita] issues I efore the electors: the one prohibition, the other continuance. Personally ho did not consider prohibition was an ideal antidote for excess. Very far from ,t. It was a matter of conscience. Mr Buckley seconded the amendment. Mr Ritchie’s amendment was Ys|- by a substantial majority and the Rev. Mr Para.ta’s motion carried by about a similar majority.