THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1888.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XX, Issue 6237, 26 October 1888, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1888.

In a loading avticlo in the Star last ( evening, the writer advocates the i establishment of an Asylum for . Inebriates in Auckland. He argues that such an institution is very much i required, and that if established that 1 the benefits derived from it would be , very large. We do not doubt that such an establishment would prove useful, and that the victim of a vicious appetite would, if sent to it, be weaned from his apparently ungovernable thirst for liquor. If this were all that were : required, then the same end would be : accomplished by incarcerating the . drunkard in prison for a month or so— j for during the time he was in the gaol, J he would not be permitted to imbibe alcoholic liquids. But unfortunately this is not all that is necessary to reclaim a drunkard, and transform him into a respectable and sober member of society. What is required, is, not that ' a person addicted to liquor should; be temporarily rescued from his . vicious ■ course, but that he should be permanently weaned from his besetting sin. That an inebriate could be treated ■ in an asylum in such a manner as io make him entertain a most strong feeling of repugnance against even the kind : of liquor he was most partial to, and that he could be discharged as "cured" after a short time, we admit. But • would the treatment he had been subjected to, while an inmate of the assylum j be of such a powerful character, and < have such a deep effect upon him, as to 1 enable him to successfully run the , gauntlet of the numerous hotels he i would have to pass the moment he left i the asylum ? We very much doubt it, | and are afraid that although a few , |" euros" might be effected permanently yet the large majority of the patients ; would only be temporarily cured—and ; that after having been weaned from the liquor while in the institution, that when left to themsfllves and free to act as they pleased the temptation to drink, met with at nearly every street corner, would prove too strong for them. We think however that a means of reclaiming the drunkard would be in amending the Licensing Law in regard to .the clauses relating to prohibited persons, It is well known that at the present time the value of a prohibited order is practically nil. Men who have been prohibited from drinking alcoholic liquors for a period of twelve months, have been known, and observed to consume more than they did prior to the order being made. Whether the fact of their being prohibited persons, makes them all the more and determined to obtain the liquor that is surely undermining their health, and ruining them from a financial point of view—or not-we do not know, but certainly an observation of prohibited persons often leads to this conclusion. Under the Licensing Act, the publican cannot be punished for supplying a prohibited person with liquor, unless he is aware at the time lie does so that the person he serves has been prohibited, and that the term of his prohibition has not yet expired. Now as the publican, , although notified by the police that A or B (as the case may be) is a prohibited person —he is not furnished with A or B's photograph hence it would be most unreasonable to expect every publican to know either A or }5. A prohibited person might therefore be seryed with liquor in an hotel, and if the hotel keeper pleaded saccessfuly that he did not know the man whom he was serving to be a prohibited person—he would not be punished. Men who have been prohibited, have been known to employ children of tender years to go to the hotels and procure liquor for. them— showing that they were so lost to all sense of the fearful danger of the path they were pursuing, as to wilfully obstruct the efforts of those of their relatives or friends who were trying to save them from a premature death, and a drunkard's grave, For such men as these, tjie only hope of curing them would be in inserting a clause in the Licensing Act providing that ,f any prohibited person, who enters an hotel and obtains ■ and consumes liquor therein j or who after obtaining liquor takes it away from the hotel; or who any other person to procure liquor for him > who is found in a state of druukeuess either in his residence or in any public place J or against whom conclusive evidence has been given before a Justice to prove that he has been drinking alcoholic liquors. Every prohibited person who shall be proved before the Qfturt to have been guilty of committing a breach of any oji the provisions mado in this clause, shall be liable to a penalty, for the iirst oJjtyjKM oji not more than 20s or 48 h,Qur_s' impisonment for a sccom,! .oftonco, of no.t mojrc ,tlpn $8 or 7 Hoys' imprisonment, op for a'thjir'd 1 offence of not mope, wfi $(f of one months' imprisonment." If the principle involves in the above clause—the punishing of the prohibited person himijsslf, and not those that supplied him—

were to be recognised, , and a clause of a similar character to tlio one above mentioned introduced into the Licensing Act, we fully believe that it would provo most efficacious in preventing prohibited persons obtaining liquor—as when they knew they were risking a fine and imprisonment by inducing a.publican to serve them with liquor, they would hesitate before attempting to obtain it —and, even if it were found to be of little effect in one or two cases, we feel sure that it would bo a wise provision, as the facilities for- obtaining the [liquor with impunity, the prohibited person now enjoys, would be ruthlessly swept away.