The Thames Star. Resurrexi. MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1897. REV. SERPELL AND PROHIBITION

Thames Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 8610, 15 March 1897, Page 2

The Thames Star. Resurrexi. MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1897. REV. SERPELL AND PROHIBITION

In another column the Rev. S. J. Serpell leads off his argument with a reference to the " triteness " of our remarks." In repl\r, it is almost unnecessary to state that genuine truths, howover old, are never trite; otherwise the Bible, by translating which Mr Serpell earns his living, would have been trite long ago. Our correspondent, with many flourishes, challenges us to prove that Prohibitionists have ever " made the demand to decide what a man shall put into his mouth." They have done so most unmistakably, by demanding that a certain article of human consumptiton shall be removed out of reach. If any person takes any article of food or drink, and fences it round with restrictions which make its use practically impossible, hethuspi-e----vents individuals from following their own choice as to what they shall " put into their mouths." Forcible Prohibition and forcible prevention are, in fact, one and the same thing. There is not the least doubt that the Prohibitionists aim, either by force or circumvention, at preventing the people from drinking any liquor except " medicinally," for has it not been already demanded that all alcohol imported for specific purposes mentioned in the Bill shall be made nauseous ? Where such means are to be used, the end sought for is evident. Very few men who are accustomed to the use and non-abuse of liquor will be able to create their own distilleries, and no respectable men will go to grog shops, so the end is accomplished just the same. Whether the Prohibitionists Avill succeed in enforcing this direct or indirect interference with individual rights is another question. They have yet to prove whether Prohibition will practically prohibit, and it is by no means certain whether the sly grog shop era may not be attended with worse evils—physical and moral —than the present system. Man is a contrary animal, and is hard to drive out of his individual rights even by the legislative fiat. Consider, again, the remarkable construction of Mr Serpell's sentence : " It is what men sell in order to put into other people's mouths we wish to see prohibited." What do men sell ? They sell liquor; therefore it is liquor which Mr Serpell seems anxious to prohibit. But it is hard to reconcile the sentence quoted with his following remarks, which select the act of selling as the Prohibitionist Mte no it:

We do not term it a " tyrannical demand" that the wishes of 3000 electors out of 5000 shall be carried out. What we contend is that the platform of the Prohibitionist party is tyrannical. Excepting the anomalous position of Clutha, that party did not at the elections succeed in convincing a majority of the voters of any electorate. When they do-»-wheu the fiafc

of the people goes forth that the use j liquor must be prohibited—wo will be prepared to accept it. Meanwhile, Mr Serpell is indulging iv the trivial ■ occupation of "counting his chickens." j We have never denied that the abuse , of liquor is accompanied by great j evils ; that is why we advocate moral I suasion and force of example. But. mark the inconsistency and unfairness j of Mr Serpell's remarks. He sees a j perfectly fair parallel between vending ' the milk of cancerous cows, which is ! universally fatal, and selling liquor | which, used with moderation, has never been productive of harm. And though Mr Sorpell strains the comparison so largely in the one direction, he goes to the opposite extreme when dealing with the parallel we raised, and belittles theevil effects of smokingand tea-drink-ing as compared with liquor. It must be obvious to all unprejudiced minds that there is far more of a parity for evil between smoking and alcohol, than between alcohol and cancerous milk. The latter is utterly evil and corrupt. Alcohol cannot come under the same condemnation, or where would the Englishman be after his centuries of beer drinking ? And yet Mr Serpell shrieks about" mis-representation."

As regards the challenge, that is a class of bluff which is of no merit in argument. We do not wish to interfere with Mr Serpell's personal convictions in the slightest. If he has £5 to spare for the Hospital, he should need no other incitement—considering his profession and philanthropic principles—to donate it; and whether he has or has not, we see no material advantage in further debating at this stage a question in which the public was thoroughly educated prior to last elections, andwhich was rejected by a referendum of the people.