Correspondence Condensed

Southland Times, Issue 19116, 5 August 1903, Page 3

Correspondence Condensed

-T. Buxton \vrite9 criticising the article on Liquor Legislation that appeared in our Saturday's Issue. He objects to the distinction drawn between crimes and moral jevils such as gluttony and aaarice, on the ground that crimes are nothing but moral evils. "There are but two kinds of evil, moral and physical, the former proceeding from human action, the latter from natural phenomena (earthquakes, etc.). Coming • to our statement that drunkenness has decreased enormously during the last century as the result of controlling legislatkm.vMr Huxton asserts that legislar -tfon bad nothing to do with it except that legislation' brought about by the prohibition movement— the decrease was due tp the temperance* .movement. Taking up the sentence, ''the fundamental error of prohibition is that it summons the Jaw ' to do work that lies only in the sphere of moral influences,*' Mr Buxton - .ays -that moral suasion failed to suppress gambling and pro.titution. and the law took "the matter ■in hand. The law ' does not prevent these evils, but it • greatly mitigates them. Why not apply the law to intemperance then? Hut there is a dincTeuce. These evils are inherent — the desire -for alcohol is acquired. It. is. only insuppressible ; after it has been acquired, and hence tne nece,-_Uy of prohibition to preyent~-it6; being acquired. Air -Buxton then, passes to. the doctrine that prohiDitidn does not prohibit. The question, is^one presented to tbe moral sense of :man, atui communities will receive the claims of prohibition in proportion, 'as 'th.'c moral sense is strong or: weak in them. The appeal that prohibition makes to the moral sense is, first, in behalf, of that large . po.-tio'H of humanity with whom the desire ior Alcohol, once, acquired, is ;-i_isuppres.ible, and, sccontf,-|m behalf>6f the tsor_nium.ty that, desires to> free itself from, evjls brought upon it by the*- excesses "of the " first- Vclask -i- -The, force; of this^appea.. "direct proportion to tne 1 strength 'of the, community, it is falla- • clous' to attempt to predict what the, outcome of prohibition wilt- be , in .- thiscountrv from what has happened in Ainei-"fr»-nv "anywhere else. To do so is to • put the^people or this colony down . to the same levpl in. morals as prevails in America or other places where probibifton may not hive proved a success. But it is said the prohibition is a degrading tiling to the community that Idopts it-tbat it evinces a want of moral fibre. Prohibition is adopted by those who give up self-indulgence for the sake of the weaklings among tbeniIntf therefore prohibition is indisputable am i 5! if th? triumph of the highest T^S^v^cS^ Prohibition. Mr IJuxVon Stains, has proved a success P^^t n^fa^^i« faring back llcense g A great diunnuall- + » h of the fact that Clutha has for nin- years been like _. besieged city a*al sentiment is not A slr °2}gfr,/" Zealand than it is in America?