MR STOUT’S LECTURE.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3354, 3 January 1884, Page 2

MR STOUT’S LECTURE.

[To the Editor.] Sir, —I have to thank you very sincerely for the too flattering notice you have given of ray lecture. I feel it is ungracious in me to criticise what you have said, but you may pardon me in making one or two statements! on this drink question, that concerns all of us. First let me state that the colony owes a debt of gratitude to Sir William Fox for his fighting in season and out of season for temperance reform. Sometimes we may imagine that he has gone too far, but if his zeal has been fiery, has there not been a fire of misery and wretchedness caused by intemperance, ' , sufficient to touch the most phlegmatic. There are many who have nobly fought intemperance besides Sir William—men like Mr J. W. Jago, of Dunedin, and Mr Sando, of your town —but I single out Sir William because of his unbounded energy in temperance reform, and his . enthusiasm. Second, allow me to state that I do not ask much from the State ; I strove to point out (how inadequately I best feel) that if drink is to be interfered with at all, it should be dealt with by the people directly. I also, as I fancy, showed that whatever view of the State we take, social contract or social organism, it was the duty of the , State to interfere, if drink injured • not stray individuals, but the State in its collective sense. No one can sea mole clearly than 1 do, that State action alone will not make people sober. A habit that has had centuries to develop, is not likely to be changed by the passing ■ of an Act. It. must take a century to get rid of. Wo who are not pessimists, however, think some little good may be done. The only danger, and I admit it is a real danger, is the weakening of individualism. I hope the time will never come when we shall Hook to the State to do everything for us. If that , time ever arriy es, the race will be a poor one and liberty will not be known. True toleration consists in us allowing what we believe to be bad to exist, and to have the right to exist. It in no toleration to allow what we think is good to exist, a tyrant might do that, and were the evils of drunkenness confined to the drinker, sad and ruinous as these would be, I would hesitate to , raise a cry for state action, the danger of state action to true liberty _ in so great.. But I recognise and believe that intemperance ifi injuring tho State collectively, injuring our youth, injuring the industrious, and, through theFeredi- • tary tendency,, reaching to the third, and . fourth generations, and seeing the good results of the Maine legislation in many districts, I think some good may flow from State action here. But State action alone will not do—along with it must go moral suasion, and I hope tho Press will ' follow your good example in pointing out the evil results of alcoholic drinking. Again sincerely thanking you for. your kindly notice,—l am, &o;, Robert Stout.