PROHIBITION.

Southland Times, Issue 22732, 7 November 1935, Page 7

PROHIBITION.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Since despatch of my last letter to you I have read another contributed by the Rev. A. E. Waite. He proclaims that he is a Justice of the Peace, a Methodist Minister, and Mayor of Bluff. These titles certainly carry distinction, but from what I know of the gentleman I would imagine that the idea of parading same has been urged by some other prohibition zealot. Without in any way wishing to belittle a title, I contend that the expressed opinion of the person holding it must be judged entirely on its merits, the same as the opinion of plain John Brown. Mr Waite stresses the deplorable conditions in America under restored license, ridicules any suggestion that prohibition has not been a success, and wants to know who says it has been a failure. It is interesting to note that in the same issue is published a statement of Archdeacon Dodson to the effect that “Prohibition was the most damnable thing ever introduced into the United States.” Such a statement coming from the President of the Church Temperance Society of the United States must I surely carry more conviction that the opinion of the Reverend gentleman at the Bluff. In another column of your paper the Archbishop of Canterbury,

Cardinal Gibbons, the Bishops of Hereford, Worcester, Aberdeen and Orkney, are quoted among other notable people who do not approve of prohibition. Archdeacon Dodson knew that prohibition in the States made an opening for, and resulted in lawlessness and murder previously inconceivable. The inevitable result was an overwhelming majority vote for repeal of no-license. Surely the Rev. Mr Waite, who is so well-informed as to the effect of restored license in .U.S.A, must be aware of this fact. However, what our electors are more interested in are the licensed conditions in our own Dominion. Mr Waite inquires if we “want to .see the dirty old conditions, with their miserable bars, etc.” My rare visitations to Bluff hotels have not revealed any of the miserable conditions he refers to. A similar hysterical condemnation was expressed recently by the fanatical chairman of a big local business concern, but we might expect a more sensible attitude from Mt' Waite- To wrongfully mislead others who have never visted hotels at Bluff or elsewhere, to believe that they are filthy places wholly unfit to be patronized by self-respecting citizens is both misleading and unworthy. Such a general condemnation is a reflection on the police supervision, the committees that grant the licenses, and the reputable proprietors of' hotels that cater for the comfort of the travelling public. Among the latter are to be found many stuanch advocates of no-license who patronize licensed hotels in preference to clean and well-conducted private hotels. Mr Waite assures us that licensed hotels bring drunkenness and the most degraded kind of immorality. As he lives in a licensed area, does he wish us to believe that among the residents of the Bluff there is deplorable evidence of these vices; and taking them as a whole, does he infer that the citizens of unlicensed Invercargill are a superior type to those living at licensed Bluff?—l am, etc., “MODERATE.” Invercargill, November 6, 1935.