THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 11959, 10 December 1919, Page 5

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

The audience at the Town Hall, ' Marton, last night was not large when Mr Durham, an Australian speaker of note, spoke on the Liquor question. Mr A. Lyon occupied the chair. Mr Durham was applauded as he rose to speak. He was sorry the audience was small. There were many sides to the question. Some peopl'e thought there was only one. The question should;be studied from

every point of view. He was against Prohibition. That side had a very strong case, hut he would give facts and figures for his side which could be authenticated. He had every respect for the claims of the other side. He mentioned they had been a hundred years trying to do away with the drink. Drink had been described as the cause of insanity, crime, poverty, and divorce, but he quoted figures in this connection from the States which showed that prohibition compared very badly with , the dry States. Doctors differed on the subject, and ho quoted Dr Valintine's romarks on

the influenza epidemic, and the .. use

of alcohol, and he rend an extract from a speech by Dr. Hughes, Auckland, who quoted from Deuteronomy to show that wine was authorised by the lav; of God. He did not think liquor had done

so very much harm. Had piohibitionists the right to say a man should not have a glass of ale? Personal liberty meant that a man could fellow his own pleasure as long as he was not interfering with anybody else. He quoted remarks of Bishop Hereford, and reports from the States to show that prohibition did not prohibit. They had got to get the liqcor regulated if thoy wished to drive it out Prohibition would-not regulate it but drive it into the back streets where children could get it. There had been concomitant evils of prohibition. The public had seen the laws defied. Prohibition had not prohibited, but had sent liquor into places where it should not have been. It did not reduce crime, divorce or insanity. Kansas, which wastry, had more divorces than 25 States where liquor was sold. Figures from 38 States were rather astonishing. Evils were more accentuated in dry districts than in wet. Gore had' beer, dry for three years past, ana more liquor had been taken there than under license. Fines had totalled 200 per cent more than under license. Prohibition meant "moonshine" stills. Prohibition would introduce evils of the worst type—methylated spirits would be drunk. Prohibition had been declared a farce in Canada and a failure in America. America was forging ahead, and England was going back! "The speaker referred to the drinking of a native intoxicant at Honolulu, which was worse than when liquor could be purchased. Did prohibition cause industrial discontent? Recently it was intimated that prohibition agitators were not wanted in England. The Federation of Labour in America by a vote over 26 millions to 4 millions had expressed disapproval of war prohibition. Mr Gompers had submitted a report on the industrial question, and had said that depriving the working man of his beer had caused discontent. Prohibition was a champion breeder of class hatred. It was interesting to know how thoy Tgot liquor in Detroit, which was dry. Motor cars had been stopped and found to have whisky in the tyres, and double framea Pretty ladies travelling had been searched and found to be carrying a dozen rubber bottles filled with whisky. Prohibition would mean increased drink ing of drugs. Great quantities of cocaine and crude opium were being sent into Canada, and the London News said there had been the greatest craze for drugs since prohibition. The Trade added £IOO,OOO to our Treasury. Were we going'to throw it away? This was a beautiful country of ours, and prohibition was bound to affect the tourist traffic. We would not have visitors if they were not going to travel in comfort. Men would leave the country. President Taft had said it waa better to regulate the traffic than attempt to stamp it out. The law would be evaded. "It was a bad thing when the law could not be held in respect. Confucius, 1000 years. ago, had tried to legislate against liquor, but was not successful, and many societies had tried and failed. The evils of drinking were not one per cent of what *they were 1000 years ago. Prohibition would send the liquor into the homes. It would be better when the nation could train children with backbone to be able to resist it. '

Ia answer to a question the speaker stated this was only the second time he had spoken on the subject. He waEJ not running in the Trade interests. He was against Prohibition. "Against Prohibition ! " His questioner seemed surprised. "Yes. Have you sat there for threequarters of an hour and not found that out?"

He was asked for figures on crime in New Zealand, but stated he had not got them. His questioner asked ' Why not,' as he was lecturing, and stated he knew why the speaker had not got them. "If you know, why do you ask me." ,

The speaker said many a prohibitionist .would not give a man a*right to have an opinion of his own, and they objected to that. Asked how many States hail passed prohibition, he replied nearly every one, but the result would have been different had it gone before the people. Ohio had turned it down by a large majority. Ho was anked if he thought that in the event of prohibition being carried the people, would cot be democratic and loyal enough to carry it out. He replied that there was never a statute placed on the books which had not been broken, otherwise we would not need policoruen. He was asked if he was prepared to Bay sellers of liquor did not break the law, and said they did infringe the law and sometimes got caught. ■ The speaker was accorded a vote of thanks.