The Licensing Question

Southland Times, Issue 19367, 18 August 1904, Page 4

The Licensing Question

(To the Editor.)

Sir,— ln your Monday's issuS you charge] mo with wriggling under pressure put upon too by you. I was quite unconscious of that. Tho question at issue is. on© of rights, and the first question that presents itself to the enquiring mind i 9 how do we come by our ideas of right and wrong, or who is it t£» declare this to./bp right and that to, be wrong. In this condny only one answer can be given 1 . It is the majority of the people that detemvines'what is, or shall be called right arid what shall be called wrong, and from, this power of majority there is no appeal. It is claimed 1 by the ", trad© " that the licensing system exists and always has existed by the will of the people. It would be difficult' to prove that. But the right of the people is conceded in the doclaration .If the licensing system exists by the will of the people it can be abolished by the will of the people, and individual rights to facilities to purchase drink cannot prevail against tho will of tho majority. The same power settles the morality or ethical right of the thing enact- • ed, and there is no appeal against that decision eithor. It is the highest authority in the land. There is no such thing as an inherent \or inalionablo right of an absolute sort. Everything in this owrld is mutable. All rights are decreed and can he revoked. There are rights which are inherent in systems, and inseparable from them without the destruction of the system 1 . One of those is a man's right to be master of hisown workshop and to choose his own servants. . WTnia right has -been taken . away by the Arbitration Act. If this violation of rights became general ■> the system of individualism •wjhich rests upon that right would collapse. But systems can be changed, and that makes all rights mutable. You go to Lecky for 'your ethics of rights; I make 'eni myself, the same as I do logic and 1 grammar. T think I have cleared the question of rights o£ some ambigu ty, and' will now consider points in your loader. The first point of contact is the American War. You say. "•The question at issue was the right of , the Southern States to leave the Union. The slave question sank for a time into a subordinate place, and Lincoln fought primarily for'the integrity of~tbV Union •"» The slave question was ' undoubtedly the cause of the war- The contest began first with the ©lection of President; when Lincoln Stood as the anti-slavery candidate,; and I think the name of the pro-slave candidate was Bucnanan. When the Northerners got their man in, the Southerners declared for. separation, but they adopted separation as a war-cry in order to preserve slavery. £k> that slavery wag the real cause of the war' and of its continuancef Re the right or wrong of slavery— that, lik© all other questions of right or wrong is a matter of opinion, and the fact that civilised humanity declares slavery to be wrong simply means that" sentiment rather 'than sound reason has decided the question. What better - aro the lowest tribes of Africa than cattle ? To contend that the same rights inhere in a s^mi-African savage as inhere in a civilised man is the greatest of absurdities. In practice it is 'intelligence that determines' the degree of rjght whicty;; peoples, both civilised and uncivilised, enjtoy. If the German Emperor came ; to reign over the British people and attempted to play the autocrat, as he does over the German- people, he would be driven from the Throne or lose his head in less thau a year, and it is the same with civilised nations in social divisions. Intelligence must rule and ignorance must serve- You may, by violence, reverse this order for a time, but it cannot last. Ignorance can never make intelligence its servant for long.. Hence our labour lawq and political equality are wrong. The j manner of treatment of the igriorant by the intelligent in harnessing them to labour is a matter for the humanitarian to settle, but he must not disturb the- • -»..-^pxincinies here laid down. You say lam guilty of self-contradiction in claiming absolute right for the majority, and 'then limiting the cognisance of the law to the public acts of the individual. If I use the •wiord " right " in, this connection I do not mean ethical right; I mean power. In practice the law only takes cognisance of public acts. All acts which have a direct bearing on the public wellbeing are regarded as public acts. When a man goes to a public- house to get drink ho does it before ' the eyes of and he is an example to everybody. If he i does it regularly he is an integral part .! of the drinking system. You contend that, this sort of drink can only, ba called lmblic when tbo drinker gets drunk. He . then becomes amenable to the law;' But' avoiding drunkenness, and being a part of the arinlcing system which inflicts so much evil upon society, he is obnoxious to the moral sentiment which dictates thelaws, and has no valid~claim to be considered' in providing a remedy for the drink evil. But there is another way in which these so-called moderate drinkers commit offence against society. . Very many of them through their spending on drink fail to make any provision ior raiß-» haps to life or for old age, and when these overtake .them they become a burden to their . fellows, and their fellows have d perfect right to protect themselves . OS far as possible from this kind of imposition. If you will insist on the rights of individuals I must take you down to thoso fundamentals with which you be- ,, gan, and matae you prove your case right i ' from the bottom. There is one other points to notice and then. l am done. You I say my janology between the seller of indecent literature and the Salvation Army blocking traffic and the publican, creating, a nuisance with his business only holds good as applied to those who drink to excess and misconduct themselves, and fails in regard, to ?hose who use alcohol without abuse. I cannot sco how the analogy fails. The nuisance'; created by the public house is undeniable, and the fact that some people drink without be- ~ -•-.coming a part of this nuisance does not lessen the nuisattce.as Jt now exists. The only- deduction that I can draw from yoiir^ objection is that a remedy should not be applied to this public house nuisance until all . drinkere contribute to the nuisance. I notice, that this discussion is to close after this letter has' appeared and I am glad of it— l! am, otc.> .-■■_■ ; XT> BUTTON. 17th August^;;^;.; s . ; (This discussion is. clo6ed.—Bd.)