SERIOUS CHARGES.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 93, 2 December 1911, Page 5

SERIOUS CHARGES.

THE REPUDIATORS.

It has frequently boon asserted by the opponents of tlie Prohibition movement that the adoption of such a principle leads, in time, to hypocrisy, meanness, and a loss of 'all tha t sense of honour and of those niceties of conduct, which, though not enforceable by law, are, nevertheless, part of, and are looked for, in the characters of honourable men. Secondly, the further assertion is as frequently made, that the Prohibitionists have so far descended from the high moral aptitude adopted and maintained by those Covenanters and Puritans from whom they are so fond of claiming descent, that they will now approve any tactics, however questionable, in order to attain their ends, having actually adopted the vicious maxim that “bad means serve good ends,”’ which the Jesuits under St. Ignatius Loyola were blamed and execrated (rightly or wrongly) by these same Covenanters and Puritans, for putting into practice some three hundred years ago. Such sweeping assertions as the above, so damaging in their character, demand careful sifting, in order that no undeserved stignia may lie upon the name of a party professing to be so pure and honourable as the Prohibition Party. The proverb runs, “By their deeds ye shall know them,” and, unfortunately for them, it is by their deeds that the Prohibition Party shows up to such disadvantage. Dealing firstly with their honour, one is almost prompted to say, with TouHstone in “As You Like It,” that they never had any. One illustration will serve to make this sufficiently clear. In 1909 the No-license Party earnestly desired that licensing legislation should be brought down that session, and, through the Attorney-General, Sir John Findlay, approached the New Zealand Licensed V ictuallers’ Association in order that the No-license organisation (the N.Z. Alliance) and the Incensed Victuallers’ Association might come to some mutual agree-, rnent re the provisions of a new Licensing Bill. After much discussion and correspondence a compact was agreed to by both sides, and solemnly adopted and ratified by the N.Z. Alliance Executive, which also forwarded to the Premier the following letter, viz.:

“To the Right Hon. the Prime Minister or New Zealand.—Dear Sir, —On behalf of the New Zealand Alliance for the abolition of the liquor and being duly authorised by the executive of that body to make the request on its behalf, we hereby agree to, and request, that you will pass into law, during the present session of Parliament, the foregoing proposed amendments of the Licensing Act, and we hereby, on the same behalf, agree to further, by all means in our power, the passage in law of legislation embodying these amendments. We make this request and promise without foregoing the principles embodied in the Rill now standing on the Order Paper in the name of Mr Laurenson, M.P. We do so in deference to representations inade by the Hon. Dr Findlay, and on the understanding that a similar request and promise is being made to you by the authorised representatives of the licensed liquor trade, and with the hope that these amendments will serve the full purposes of our reform.—Yours respectfully (signed) Wesley Spragg, president N.Z.' Alliance; John Dawson, secretary.” ■ A similar letter was also sent to the Prime Minister by the Licensed Victuallers’ Association.

Upon receiving these proposals, acceptable to, and agreed upon, by both parties in a solemn compact, the At-torney-General forthwith had a Bill drafted and submitted to the House in terms thereof. A FEW DAYS AFTER THIS THE N.Z. ALLIANCE REPUDIATED ITS SIGNED COMPACT, which was in the hands of the Attor-ney-General, and refused to abide by its own written promise and undertaking. y, ;! It does not need argument to show that this was not the act of men of honour. The attitude of the Alliance was hypocritical, under-hand, contemptible and mean, and justifies the conclusion drawn from the statement made at thebeginning of this article, namely, thata such action reflects the want of honour and integrity to be 'found amongst the individuals who form the Prohibition Party.

The degraded street-loafer has a sense of shame, if discovered in a contemptible act; the ordinary man of the world feels the prick of conscience when he is tempted into doing anything mean or dishonourable; the man of honour and integrity considers his word to be his bond, and would sternly resent any attempt to seduce him therefrom; it remains for the No-lic-onso Party to fall into depths lower than those of the degraded streetloafer, and to unblushingly repudiate its solemn compacts and obligations, to forfeit its honour, as men understand the word, and to stand convicted out of its own mouth, of conduct that would be scorned by any decent individual.

. The further statement, that the Prohibition Party will adopt any means, even those vindictive, cruel, uncharitable, and—it is hardly necessary to include—unchristianlike, to gain its own political ends, irrespective of the wishes, needs or rights of others, can, unfortunately,- be clearly proved by sad instances of its moral laxity and supineness in our own Dominion. Respected and revered clergymen, who, however, on the subject of Prohibition could not see eye to eye with their tormentors, have been turned out of their churches and refused the right to preach the word of God therein. This has happened to highly respectable ministers who have had ten and fifteen years of successful ministry to their record, and have been a comfort to the weak and afflicted, a guide and counsellor to the erring. Again, University professors, disputing the amazing arguments of the No-license fanatics, have been persecuted and threatened with agitations for their removal, because they dared to hold opinions different to those of the Prohibitionists.

Again, Stipendiary Magistrates, having the temerity to give their honest opinions as to the dire results of Nolicense in certain “dry districts” have been reported to their political heads with demands for their dismissal.

Arc these the means to adopt because respectable, intellectual people, with character and backbone, decline to join in with the cry of the Prohibitionist Party ?

Are these examples of the chairty and other virtues which the Prohibitionist fondly imagines himself tg be pre-eminently possessed of?

Are they not, rather pitiful examples of the hatred, rancour, vindictiveness and general moral disintegration into which the advocacy of such extreme and ruthless steps as the Prohibitionists propose, inevitably leads one ?

What can be said of the honour of a party whose motto is; “Repudiate” ; whose moral tactics equal those of the Red Indian or of the unspeakable Turk? Is it any cause for wonder that sober, temperate, respectable citizens refuse to allow themselves to be herded or associated in any form with such a disreputable and dishonourable crew.

or to be identified with tactics so fundamentally ruthless and piratical? To “repudiate” : The word has a nasty, unclean sound.*