PROHIBITION.

Thames Star, Volume LIX, Issue 16626, 23 October 1925, Page 5

PROHIBITION.

NOT A REMEDY. FOR THE LIQUOR EVILS. MR. F. BURKE’S ADDRESS. i (Extended Report by Arrangement.) Mr F. Burke, who has gained a considerable reputation as a platform speaker, addressed a particularly good meeting at St. James’ Hall last evening on Prohibition. The Deputy-Mayor, Mr W. Bongard, presided, and in introducing the speaker, said Mr Burke was opposed to Prohibition, and sought to show that it was not a remedy for the admitted evils in the liquor business. The speaker, in a particularly able speech, which was ver.y attentively listened to, said that it was only through reform on temperance that lasting benefits could accrue. Mr Burke said there seemed to be an idea prevalent 'that since he was against prohibition he was an advocate for drink. That was not so. He did' not ask anyone to become a drinker. He claimed it was the abuse of liquor that caused the evil, and one could not make people sober by Act of Parliament. Prohibitionists took the narrow view, and blames the thing that was abused. What was prohibition? ’As an Act of Parliament, it was an appeal to force for a moral reform. It was coercion —a dictatorship. No one would support prohibition if they studied it properly. It was a very different matter to the social reform of temperance, which he favoured. Prohibition was to social reform as Bolshevism to the Labour question.

Temperance.

Temperance had gained ground everywhere and drunkenness was on the decline. This was but due to the elevation of men’s minds comparable to the old times. ..The-New Zealand Year Book showed a decline in drunkenness, and the last figures indicated only three per 10,000 per day. This did not seem a case, for legislation. Prohibitionists made a gloomy picture of New Zealand; which was altogether wrong. It was the most sober and lawabiding country in the world, and did not require a prohibition act. Start of Prohibition. In ISSI Maine adopted prohibition. Till 1925 they had three generations, and if the prohibitionists’ arguments were sound the people of Maine should be in the lead morally of any part of the world. That was far from the case. Norway and Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Russia, Alberta, Ontario,-Brit-ish Columbia and Newfoundland had all tried prohibition and repealed it. Wherever it had been tried it had been tried as an honest means for abolishing the liquor trade and in every case it had been repealed. When the Volstead Act became law 201 members were not present in Congress. Seeing that America had not repealed prohibition, the natural query • was why? America had never had a referendum on any question. There were people trying to get America to take a na-tion-wide referendum on the liquor question, and the only opponents were the Anti-Saloon League and the Prohibition Party. If the prohibitionists were honest when they stated that the Americans were very satisfied with the position, why was it that they opposed the taking of a referendum? The Prohibitionists’ Year Book for 1925 admits that the various provinces of Canada which had tried prohibition had repealed it. How could a party publish its failures and then come and ask the people of New Zealand to accept prohibition here.

Mr Burke went on to say that temperance reform was. one of the finest social reforms ever attempted, and was worthy of all support. It had gained ground in America until it had been turned into the extreme organisation of prohibition and from that time it had become a retrograde movement. Three classes. As a student of mental philosophy, he had come to the conclusion that prohibitionists could be divided into three classes: (1) The man or woman who honestly believed that prohibition was the remedy. He respected the sincerity of these people,' but unfortunately they were misled and did not get the truth .from their prohibition friends, and not only were these people the financial backers, but the numerical strength of the prohibition movement. (2) They were the extremists. The extremist was born an extremist. On the prohibition platform they would find the extremist—the man, for instance, who claimed to be a reformed man. Once he was a drunkard or an atheist. This man' went from one extreme to another . From' a drunkard he became a prohibitionist and wanted to stop any other man from getting in moderation what he had abused. There was no cure for the extremist, who was found in all spheres of life. They could read in the papers of certain people passing resolutions against racing, tobacco, the length of girls’ skirts, etc. These people were not fit and proper persons to govern humanity. They were suffering from an obsession of over-purity. Healthy people believed in certain pleasures as being an outlet for energy. Young people resented extremists and would vote' agfiinst them at the poll. This was not an emanation of evil-mindedness. Prohibition was inculcating into the youthful mind a curiosity, plus resentment, and that was why the morals of the U.S.A. were to-day worse than ever they were, and certainly not comparable with New Zealand. The- birthrate in New Zealand was better and the death-rate lower in New Zealand, all proving that the U.S.A. had a lot to learn from New Zealand. Clean Hotels. Some prohibitionists thought New Zealand hotels were comparable to the American saloons. This was not so by any means, as the latter were drinking dens only. Any prohibitionist of Thames could enter any hotel at any time in the day and take away a sample of the liquor, which .would be of the purest, and he would find that the hotels were scrupulously clean. The licensees of the local hotels had asked him to issue this invitation to counteract the statement that they were selling poison. People were protected by Customs officials in the wholesale trade and by the police in the retail trade. A policeman had the right to enter at any time an hotel and take samples of liquor for analysis.

Misleading Statements. Some of the most wild and sweeping statements were being made about hotels and liquor, hoodwinking thousands of men and women, who had not time v to seriously go into the matter. The third type was the opportunist. When the prohibition movement was formed in the U.S.A. it was realised that it was strong, but there were no born leaders, and this was where the opportunist came in. He led thousands ; with “sob stuff,” as he called it. They worked up their audiences to l the pitch of tears, and then went round with the plate. They were only scoundrels. If prohibition were passed in New Zealand then these scoundrels would come to this country. The trade would be driven upderground and into unlawful channels. At present in New Zealand the trade was carried on legally and by men who. had to be of good character, and who were under the control of the Licensing Bench.

Moral Support. Abuse of the law was caused by the withdrawal of moral support. The precedent of ignoring the law had been established in the U.S.A. and the biggest problem to-day in that country was how to enforce the law. This state of things was not wanted in New Zealand. A Moderate. x The speaker went on to say he was a moderate in every way. He had moral control over himself, and did not see that passing a law to compel such moral control would be possible. One of the most pitiful sights to be seen today was a minister of religion advocating prohibition. Theological teachings were for a man or woman to prove their moral courage. Christian education was to make one good by one's own moral feeling. To appeal to law was to admit that one’s theology was bankrupt. He upheld the Christian religion, but when he found the disciples of the founder of Christianity were appealing to Parliament he thanked God that he was not in the field for prohibition. Young people shoulcP#be trained to resist temptation. He had been so trained and that was why he was clean moi’ally and physically today. Prohibition would take away temptation and with it what wasr*ecessary to a strong, clean, moral character. The British were not a decadent race. They had nothing to fear. They had been trained morally and if anybody- wanted to take anything away from them they knew how to fight. In the stage from boyhood to manhood the prohibitionists were asking -them to retard the progress of mental and moral development. The talk about prohibition being in the interests of children was only sentiment and would not bear analysis.

A Challenge.

Continuing, Mr Burke said that he was prepared, after the election, to pay a visit to America in company with a representative of the New Zealand Prohibition Party. They could go. without credentials, as ordinary citizens and mix with the ordinary life of America. If in any place they went they failed to obtain liquor, he would pay expenses, and when they did obtain liquor the prohibitionist would >•' pay. That was a fair offer. He asked them to vote continuance and for the candidate who most suited them, but not to turn Parliament into a prohibition or no-license community. It had been stated that the prosperity of America was due to prohibition, but this was not so. It was due to the three years of neutrality allowing it to accumulate gold. Many States in the U.S.A. were practically bankrupt, although the Federal revenue showed a surplus. Were they prepared to have liquor above ground, or follow the U.S.A. and drive it underground? The ' only way to abolish drunkenness was coming gradually. The English-speak-ing world was becoming more refined every year, and therefore there was more abhorrence for the man who abused liquor. Mr Burke concluded by saying: “It is this damnable act of coercion that I am against.” The only question asked was whe- : t ther, when the Volstead Act was pass- • ed and 201 members were not present, was there any reason to suppose that these members were purposely absent? Mr Burke said it was a snatch vote. The time happened to be ripe for the “drys" to seize their opportunity and put the vote.

A very hearty vote of thanks was carried by acclamation to Mr Burke for his able address, a courtesy Mr Burke acknowledged with appreciation. He asked them to pass a vote of thanks to the Deputy-Mayor for presiding, and this wag. also carried by acclamation.