PROHIBITION V. STATE CONTROL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 4014, 21 February 1903, Page 1

PROHIBITION V. STATE CONTROL.

\ (To the Editor.) Sir,—Your leading, article on Temperance would lead one to think that it is only in prohibition 1 districts that sly-grog selling exists. I affirm that there are more cases of sly-grog selling in licensed districts than there are where prohibition exists. In fact prohibition is only the outcome of such sly-grog selling. You speak, of the hundreds that * are not caught at the game. The same statement, only in a larger degree, holds good under license, Of course, prohibition does not prohibit; who ever expected it would. Does the law against stealing prohibit stealing ? Does the law against murder prohibit murder ? Do you know of any single law that does entirely prohibit the crime for which it was intended ? Would you be in favour of revoking, all present laws ? Your present theory almost stamps you as a. man with Anarchist tendencies, You .bring this stigma upon yourself by your arguments. If prohibition is such a gigantic failure, why does Clutha and the two next-door electorates vote for it ? You take the stand of the men who gel grog slyly and the men who patronise them, and ask yourself the question : should we make a standing temptation to every member of the community, to save these men who will persist in acting contrary to the will of the people ? Let brains rule, not stomachs. You make out that no-license does not protect the very people who need protecting. You, of course, mean habitual drunkards. You are entirely wrong, or nearly so in this respect. The rising generation is what needs protecting ; and in 'my estimation we can expect more good eventually from ten pure • children than we can reasonably expect from twenty topers. State Control would be no remedy. You say if we had State control there would be no sly-grog selling. Quite so if every man could take his neighbour's goods there would be no one "had up " iov stealing.. No law, no convictions. In State control you would have to have limits and laws ; if men objected to the strictures placed upon them, they would be just as liable to evade '.those strictures as they are to evade the laws of prohibition. If grog can be smuggled from one province into another, it can also he brought from one colony into another. Drinkwill have the same effect whether it is sold by the State or the individual. I would rather trust ,the hotelkeeper, than I would trust an unscrupulous Government. Would the men you are , going to place behind the bars be above being bribed in anyway, No seats, to sit down, no accommodation. Prohibition, you said, did this in Ashburton, yet you rounded on us, and said men could not transact business under such conditions. Oh, memory ! Tell your readers whether the State dispensaries in South Carolina, U.S.A., entirely prevent sly-grog selling Unmistakably they do not. The kind of protection women and children want is that which protects them from the acts of a drunken man. State control does not do this. All this blow about State control is only a "make up " of the trade, who have no desire for State control. Their idea is to split the vote, thereby delaying prohibition. I know for a fact that this is to be the tactics of the trade during the next three years. It State control should be carried they will lose little, as they will be paid for their fully paid-up shares. Hoping you will pardon me for using so much of your space. It is no interest to me to do so. lam only working for the greatest good for the greatest number, while yo.u seem to be working for the greatest good for the smallest number.—l am, etc, TRUTH.