PERSONAL LIBERTY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 68, 3 November 1911, Page 5

PER SONAL LIBERTY.

IN RELATION TO THE LIQUOR

TRAFFIC

LECTURE BY PROFESSOR MILLS

Tho Town Hall was comfortably’ filled last night, when Professor Mills, of Milwaukee University’, delivered an address entitled “Personal Liberty and Monopoly of the Liquor Traffic.” Tnc lecturer was briefly introduced by the Mayor (Mr J. Masters), who occupied tho chair.

Professor Mills said there was nothing more often said by people engaged in selling liquor tnan that tiie movement to prohibit its sale was an encroachment on the personal liberty of the subject. He drew attention to tho advertisements in newspapers dealing with the sale of liquor and which were usually followed by a very small star, which people might not see, being led, therefore, to believe the statements to be made on tiie authority of the newspaper publishing them. The doctrine of tho “trade” was that there were certain things which were personal and individual and should not he dealt with by tho collective authority of the community. Tiie “trade” quoted tho case of a single man on an, island who must bo presumed to be able to do anything he pleased, as he could not hurt anybody by anything he might do. Further, people came to the island, and tiie first man surrendered certain ol his rights in order to enjoy social life, but although he surrendered one right after another, the right to buy and sell liquor and to consume it was one of the rights which the first man had never given up. The lecturer opposed the whole of the doctrine. In the first place, Nature never placed a man on an island by himself—he could never bo anywhere if there was not somebodv »dse there. (Laughter.) Therefore there was always somehodv else to lie considered. flights of men were not tho result of bargains, but they grew naturally cut of relationship—every man was born to he somebody’s son, to be somebody’s neighbour, to be a citizen, and tin's not because he had any desire to have it so. The rights of children were the duties ’of parents. No citizen could be called upon to cany cut his duty to a state, unless the state carried out its duty to him. A parent who failed in his duty to his child had no right to claim his right as a parent. He drew a number of pictures ol people who refused to do their duty but still demanded their rights. What was the most sacred right of man? Was it not the right to life? Religion in all its channels sought to show this, as also did law, literature and art. It was written large in flaming letters everywhere “Thou shalt not kill,” but it was not written, “Thou shalt submit to being killed.” It was a principle of law that a man who sought justice must himself nave clean hands—ho could not demand lus rights if lie had violated the rights of tho party whom he alleged had injured him. That day the “trade" had issued a written appeal ti t :e pe-ip e to help it to protect its; ••'gh.s- would 10 follow tills no bv a lea bet stating that it had done all its duties? If they performed no duties they had no rights. Why was it that the liquor business w'as the only one which the state found it necessary to specially regulate. When was a business entitle a to ho called a business ? If a man opened a grocery store be v as entitled to the protection of the civil authority’ so long only as he earned out his duty to tho community, by making a return of service.-’ equal in value to the cash paid. If there was a business which tonic noth and gave little, it was an insult to the iiueil gence of the community lor that ! nsiness to speak abmi’i its r'ghL. The principle which had been applied to the ironmonger should be applied to the beermonger, and as it was applied to the dry goods man it should lie applied to the wet goods man. No brewer or publican in the country’ would agree to have the liquor business placed on the same footing as other business. This was clue to one cf two things—it was cither because of the character of the merchandise or because of the character of the people selling it. He was not there to say that publicans had less character than men in other business. Ho did not desire to prohibit the sale of liquor because the men in the business were of bad character hut ho ;ysked for tho prohibition of liquor because liquor had been found to lie a common enemy. There wore two businesses in New Zealand in which it was necessary for men to he of good moral character—the clergy and the publichouse business. The difference was not made by the men in the business, but the stuff in tho business. Professor Mackenzie, of Victoria College, Wellington, said:— “You propose to prohibit, but yon are unable even to regulate.” Professor Mills had to take a short rest while the audience laughed at his remark in opening an anecdote -.“When I was a little fellow—”. The anecdote dealt with a hunter after panthers seeking to carry out Professor Mackenzie’s philosophy—the hunter laying down ins rifle (with which lie might have killed the panther) and regulate the panther hy drawing out its tusks and claws. It was impossible to catch a panther alive, and some people could not see tlu.it it was possible to kill a thing where it could not bo regulated. As a matter of fact there would be no necessity' for prohibition if it were not that regulation had been proved to lie a whole and complete failure. Regulation had been tested for sixty years, and the final result was that the “trade” had found it necessary in order to retain it to make forty votes for liquor count for as much as sixty votes against it. This was equal to a direct plea of guilty on tho part of the “trade” that regulation had wholly failed. For some time prior to this point the Professor had been struggling with his voice, which he had strained earlier in the evening, and lie now decided to abandon his address, as ho could scarcely make himself heard. A vote of thanks was passed to Professor Mills, on the motion of Mr R. H. Cameron, seconded by Mr Brown.