Prohibition Lecture.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 8639, 30 September 1896, Page 2

Prohibition Lecture.

The Rev. W. Ready, of Dunedin, gave an address in the Theatre Royal last evening on Prohibition under the auspices of the Prohibition League. In consequence of a very wet night there was but a small attendance. The Mayor presided, and briefly introduced the speaker and a Tirnaru audience together. There were also on the stage the Rev. C. E. Beeeroft and Mr W. Coe. Mr Ready commenced his speech with a song “Strike out the Top Line,” and the audience joined in the chorus. This was easily done as the air was a familiar hymn tune. This was to be the campaign song for the next poll, to be sung till polling day and then done. He repudiated any desire to say anything against the publican as a man, but he objected to the way he gets his living. This was Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s illustration, He had no more to say against the publican than against th- flea, and he objected to the way the flea gets its living. He then compared grog-selling as an industry with others. Farming, manufacturing,' handicrafts, teaching, preaching, produced something useful for the life of the people, and the followers of such industries would be welcomed in the founding of a new community; this could not be said for the brewer and his trade. This was a devil’s business and every reasonable man’s hand should be against it. He argued for some time against the claim for alcohol that it is phvgically valuable or useful, and enforced this bp

allusions to well known phenomena of intoxication. Similarly he dealt with the mental effects of excess, and with the moral aspect. Under the latter head he referred lo a toast proposed at a late brewers’ dinner at Dunedin, ‘“Confusion to Prohibition,” on which the proposer looking round the table said he would back that company against the prohibitionists “ from piteh-and-toss to manslaughter.” That was quite correct. Gambling and killing were the main lines of the liquor trade. He referred to the O’Gorman-Kenny case in the North Island as an illustration of the piteh-and-toss to manslaughter principle. He likened the victims to drink to the crew of the Patrician, demanding help, by their very condition, from the passing Fifeshire ; if the Fifeshire had -passed by with a “ let them alone” all Britons would have scorned them. So the drink victim by his condition demanded rescue, and they must not say a cowardly “let him alone.” Mr Sievwright said ministers of the Gospel should hold their tongues. He denied that the Gospel was concerned only with souls; Christianity was as much a religion of the body as of the soul, and he could not accept the doctrine that Mr Sievwright knew best what a minister should do with his tongue. He condemned regulation, because instead of the Government regulating the traffic, the traffic regulated the Government; and regulated the police who were supposed to regulate it. A wild colt was worth regulating into a good horse ; the drink traffic was like a mad dog, could not be regulated and was not worth it if it was possible. As to moral suasion, that reached its highest point when American women went to barkeepers and prayed to them to stop selling; the barmen simply pointed to iheirsign—Licensed to Sell.” Moral suasion was of no use. Some people said they should separate the question from politics. That was impossible, because the traffic existed by law and that was polities; by political means only could the evil be dealt with. It was a law-made traffic, and the law-maker must be made to unmake it. It must beunmadealtogether, by clean-cut national prohibition. Politically, socially, morally, religiously, be asserted that the prohibitionist was in the right; and that the movement was not from America, nor from the Isitt’s or Taylor’s, but from God, This movement was of the nature of a conflict between antagonistic principles, which having come together must fight till one was conquered. There could be no doubt which it was to be. It might be said to be a contest between woman and the publichouse; which of these two should go down ? The facts of the day made the battle, and New Zealanders would fight for God. home and humanity rather than the publichouse, and bring on the early time when there would be no brewery or hotel found necessary in the country.

Mr Ready spoke with much declamatory force, and kept the audience in good humour with anecdotes and jokes. He used some strong terms in describing the liquor traffic and those engaged in it.' Mr Beecroft spoke in praise of the earnest address Mr Ready had given, and requested liberal donations towards the collection for expenses. Votes of. thanks to the lecturer, proposed by the Rev. W. Gillies, and to the Mayor, by Mr Ready, closed the meeting. .■