MRS HELEN BARTON.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 82, 20 November 1911, Page 5

MRS HELEN BARTON.

HER LOVE FOR CHILDREN. AN ASTOUNDING DECLARATION. MR. JUSTICE PRING’S JUDGMENT. (Extracted from “Fair May,’" March 17th, 1911.) In March of this year Mrs. Barton, a lady employed by tiro Prohibitionist is to lecture on their behalf in New Zealand, sued a newspaper in Australia for libel and sought to recover £2OOO. She got £5, and had to pay uer own costs, the Judge, Mr. Justice Bring, of Sydney, where the case was heard, saying the case ought never to have been brought into court. However, that fact in the case is not what commands attention from a Prohibitionist viewpoint. It is Mrs Helen Barton’s amazing statement as to what would be her attitude to a dying child. • Mr. Shand, K.C., had Mrs. Helen Barton under cross-examination. Mrs. Barton said she had been a Prohibitionist all her life, and would go as far as to say that liquor of any kind should not be taken under any circumstances whatever. Mr. Shand: But the advocacy of Prohibition does not necessarily involve abstinence at all times in these who follow it? Is that your view? Mrs. Barton: I believe in Prohibition out and out. ,

Mr. Shand: I suppose you will admit that those who advocate Prohibition do not all go to the extent you' go and refuse to admit the of liquor under any circumstances?

Mrs. Barton: I have nothing to do with what other people think.

Mr. Shand: Answer my question. I am asking what von know.

Mi s. Barton: I don’t advocate it oven as a medicine. Mr. Shand: If a doctor was treating your favourite child, and he said, “I can save tho child’s life by giving it brandy,” wood you give it any brandy? < Mrs. Barton: No, I would not. Mr. Shand: You would let it die? Mrs. Barton: Yes, I would.

’ His Honour: You would not give brandy to a dying child when brandy was recommended by a doctor ? Mrs. Barton: No, I would not. His Honour: Arc you married? Mrs. Barton: I have been a widow for fifteen years. His Honour: Have you any children ?

Mrs. Barton; Nino children.

His Honour: W ell, I might inform you tha if you refused to do it, and tho child died, you would be guilty of manslaughter.

Now, tiro Prohibitionists have engaged Mrs. Barton at, it is said, a high salary, to disseminate her views throughout New Zealand. They accept the responsibility, but surely tho less bigoted will repudiate their agreement with Mrs. Barton’s avowed inhumanity. To save the Dominion from being under the domination of those holding Mrs. Barton’s" deplorable views, the women voters will strike out the bottom linos on both ballot papers. THE JUDGE’S -REMARKS.

Mr. justice Pring, in the course of his summing-up in tho case, said: The plaintiff, Mrs. Barton, advocates not only total abstinence, but prohibition. She would not even use branclay to save a person who would otherwise die. 1 hope there are not many in the community who hold the same views. .A very large mass of thinking people in this community do not believe in total abstinence, and are-? wise enough to believe that everything, given to us by tho Creator ■nay be put to a good use. Used properly, these things are beneficial, and die evil lies in their abuse. 1 hear people proclaiming loudly against liquor, and I, often wonder whether they are not abusing some other gift of the Creator. It is just as disgusting to gorge food as it is to follow intemperance in the drinking of liquor. Wo find that Mrs. Barton has come out here for the purpose of taking part in a No-Liccnsc campaign. Apparently _ she herself in her public addresses is not above attacking other people. She has called every hotel in this country a den of infamy and iniquity. That is language one cannot excuse. It is going too far altogether. By accident, as she says, she called down God’s curse on a bishop. Accident or no accident, she called down a curse on Bishop Stretch. We find that she is a woman who is not alioge slandering other people. . . Tnis is straight, outspoken, and just. It needs no comment; it confirms what so frequently has been said by those opposed on the highest and sanest grounds to No-License and Prohibition. But the Prohibitionists are paying Mrs. Barton to spread her views in New Zealand, and she is doing this' for the purpose of having those views established here. We cannot think that the men, and especially the women, will agree to vote as Mrs. Barton bids them.*