THE RENAISSANCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 90, 29 November 1911, Page 5

THE RENAISSANCE.

It is now necessary to take leave of the clerical anti-prohibition movement, and to consider the opinions of those pre-eminent in science, art, literature and commerce. Following upon Professor Salmond’s shattering counterblast to the prohibitionist’s idea, comes a second overwhelming in(lictmcnt of that vicious principle. Tiii.s time the book is not written by

a professor ol 3 heology and Philosophy, imt by three professors of the University of New Zealand who hold the Chairs of Science and Arts. “Prohibition • Fatai Liberty; Temperance and Morality” presents little in the way of elaborate argument, but chiefly a formidable array of damning facts. The strength of both booklets, viewed as .fighting stall for men wrio think honestly, lies in the. fact that they arc written and compiled by men bejond reproach, men whom only the most desperate stretch of imagination could conceive as being, even in an indirect or remote sense, partisans of the liquor interests. Trie loading pharmacologist and food authority ot the present day is, undoubtedly, Dr. Arthur R. Cusnny, M.A., M.D., F.R. S., Professor of Pharmacology in tho University of London, Examiner to the Universities of London, Manchester. Leeds and Oxford. In his “Text-book of Pharmacology and Therapeutics” sth edition (revised), 1919, Professor Cushny writes; “Is alcohol a food? This iias long been discussed, and that with more passion and prejudice than are generally elicited by pharmacological questions. . . In undergoing conbnstion alcohol gives up energy to tho body, and is therefore technically a food.” Further, lie says, “The question might be raised whether alcohol docs not require an amount of energy for ils absorption equal to that liberated by its combustion.” After onoting experiments, lie concludes, “A certain amount of energy is required for the absorption, but this is not greater than that required for the absorption of any other form of food.” Under the heading “Therapeutic Uses,” he says: “In sudden chill, with a tendency to fever, alcohol is often of great benefit, especially when taken in the form of whisky or brandy diluted with hot water. Its efficacy hero would seem to bo due to the relief of the congestion of the internal organs by the return of the blood to the skin.” Again; “Alcohol is of value as a mild hypnotic, a comparatively small quantity taken before retiring being often sufficient to secure quiet and refreshing sleep. Beer, or spirits and water is generally used for this purpose.” Professor Cushney’s pronouncement is endorsed by the highest medical authorities in England. Sir James Paget, M.D., and Sir Dyco Duckworth, M.D., F.R.C.S. (Physician to tao King), have given expression to the same views; and no later than hist month, Dr. Pockley, President of the Australasian Medical Congress, stated in bis presidential address, that drunkenness had no effect on the processes of degeneration in the human race. A most scathing, sarcastic criticism, by Sir William Osier, M.D. (lately Professor of Medicine at Oxford Univeiv sity), of the London Temperance Hospital, is worth re-telling in this connection. Here it is: “It would he too much like hoisting the teetotaller with his own petard to attribute the very high rate of mortality from typhoid fever at the London Temperance Hospital—ls to 16 per cent., during the last 20 years—to failure to employ alcohol.” Edmund Owen, M.D., F.R.C.S., Senior Surgeon to the Hospital for Sick Children, London, says, in diphtheria “wine should be given with great freedom; there is no drug or aliment equal to it.” Dr. Parry, Fellow of the .Royal Society, says: “Beer is a refreshing, oxhilirating and nutritive beverageits bitter principle renders it a stomachic and tonic.” None of these men of outstanding reputation in their profession advocate prohibition. They do, as all wise people do, advocate temperanc, in meat as well as in drink. Before leaving the medical aspect of the question, it would be interesting and instructive to ma ke known the exact proportion of a civilised community that is injuriously affected by over indulgence in alcoholic drink. In his annual report, published on tho 6th September, 1911, Dr. Brautbwaite, the Government Inspector under tho “Inebriates Act,” divides ill alcoholic users into three classes: (a) The strictly moderate, of whom he declares the harm they do to others is problematical, and the harm they do themselves is still more so. These he puts down as 980 per 1000 of the total. (1>) Those who are free drinkers and occasional drunkards 17.5 to 18 per 1000, and (c) the final habitual drunkard or inebriate class of 2 to 2.5 per 1000.” Thus:—

Per 1000 of Class the population. Ist Moderate users 'of alcoholic beverages ... ... 980 2nd Drinkers who become occasionally intoxicated ... 18 3rd Habitually addicted to inebriation ... ... 2 1000 Now, Dr. Brantbwaite says, the third class is made up of persons who are constitutionally incapable of taking alcohol in moderation, and this defect is permanent and not cradicablo. Their numbers are recruited from class 2, of whom a large proportion returns to class 1.

The natural deduction is, that it would be absurd for 980 persons to deny themselves the use of alcohol, simply because 18 occasionally transgress the bounds of moderation, and 2, for physical reasons, should lie total abstainers. Dr. Brantbwaite, accordingly urges that tlie inebriate must be taught that be cannot take alcohol, for tl ic same reason that the diabetic has to avoid certain articles of diet; and in order to do this it is essential that habitual drunkenness shall cease to be regarded as a crime or preached about as a vice or sin. It would be too much to expect the ranting, rabid prohibitionist to agree with all Dr. Brantbwaite says, but for a really temperate statement of the drink problem tlie inspector’s’ report would be hard to beat.

Leaving now the scientific and medical opinions destroying tho fond imaginings of the teetotal party, we might, in conclusion, advert to what is, frankly, a most astonishing and unexpected volte face, upon the part of the great English Methodist organ, “The Outlook.” The proverb runs, “Timeo Danaos ut dona ferentes;” however, here it is. The loaders of that Church, at Home, have been forced to the inevitable conclusion that prohibition enactments are not the moans host calculated to deal with the liquor problem. AAV give the “Outlook’s” article verbation: The history of mankind has no example of a nation which totally abstained from drugs and drinks when it had the chance of getting them. If it could not have its nerve tonic or opiate' in one form it found it in another. V.'ino, spirits, ale, ipinm, Indian -hemp, Kaffir beer, Icava, betel nut, coffee, tobacco, separately nr in combination, minister to this elementary appetite, which legislators have been endeavouring with more or less success to control for thousands of years. There were temperance reformers under the early dynasties of

Egypt, and angry attempts to repress drunkenness by the Mosaic law-givers. The campaign of repression has, never been successful; the most that knv and custom can do is to change the direction of the current, to alter the incidence of a habit. If alcohol is prohibited some other stimulant takes its place. _ . Nature, which implanted the instinct, lias found means to “regulate” it witnont the aid of international conferences. According to the newest school of physiologists nations do not perish because natural selection provides them with a stern school of compulsory temperance. The habitual j drinkers and druggors are killed off, and so in course of time there is evolved a race which is able to take as much stimulant as is good for it and does not want to take more. Dr. Archdall Reid, in his latest hook, insists that the really temperate peoples are those who have had a training to alcohol extending over centuries, like the Greeks, tho Italians, the French of the south, 'and the other Mediterranean populations which have been drinking wine since prehistoric periods. They are “immune,” but they arc not abstainers, only they have learned to drink in moderation. It is when the habit is comparatively young that it is most devastating, as when European spirits were first introduced to the Polynesian tribes who had never tasted them before.

The “Outlook” is, it may be pointed out, only re-iterating what its contemporary in the United States, the “American. Outlook,” edited by the Rev. Dr. Lyman Abbott, with ox-Pre-sident Roosevelt as associate-editor, has already urged. The Rev. Dr. Abbott is a leading Methodist minister.

In conclusion, it must bo admitted that the premises laid down in the beginning of this article, namely, that prohibition to-day stands discredited by the leading intellects of the century in all spheres of human knowledge, have been amply proved, and re-proved. Fol/owing on the foot-prints of the mental giants of the world, will soon be seen the rank and file. It is at last realised, that prohibition is an nr scientific, illogical and impotent means of combating, what is a greatly exaggerated defect in our social cosmos, and further, that the tactics of the leaderless and deficiently educated crew who remain agitating for an abundance principle, are sufficiently disreputable and ridiculous to entail complete indifference at the bands and minds of those to whom the world looks for guidance and authority in matters concerning the moral and physical well-being of mankind.*