PROHIBITION FALLACIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6593, 18 September 1899, Page 4

PROHIBITION FALLACIES.

(Published by arrangement.) IS THE OBJECT GOOD? Whatever be the reason, if reason there can be, for the strange perversity which pharactenses the methods of prohibitionists, this much is certain— tbey have so far absolutely failed to grapple with any of the more serious objections urged against their tyrannical proposal. I n his essay on " Individual Liberty and State Interference," Professor D. G. Richie submits the following propositions for consideration i 1 — 1. -Is the object good— i.e., will it tend to advance the well-being of the community? 2. Will the proposed means attain it? 3. Will tbey attain it without doing more harm than is compensated by the benefits of its . attainment? However much they may desire the fact to be kept in the background, the real object of the coerckraists is to prevent, by force, the manufacture, sale, or use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage, and with them the "no license" campaign, is but a means to this end. To force a few moral weaklings into the appearance of virtueweaklings whom all experience goes to prove would, in the absence of drink, sucenmb to other vices of a more degrading and disastrous nature — they would deprive tens of thousands of morally strong, self-reliant and self-respecting citizens of that which they regard as essential to their health, their comfort, or their happiness. Can such an object be good? Let it be remembered that no enactment, no matter how large the majority enforcing it, can endow a single subject with moral force, while, on the other hand, it will create in the morally strong feelings of resentment, disgust and contempt for the law, which feelings may themselves become the precursors of such jnethods of violation as will lead to certain consequent moral degeneration and social degradation. WILL THE MEANS ATTAIN IT? Even if the. object aimed at by the phohibitionists were good, answers would still be required to the questions, Will the means attain it? and, Will tney attain it without entailing ' evils worse than 'that sought to be remedied? On this head no evidence can be of greater value than thatt of persons speaking from practical experience. Speaking in the Dominion Parliament on the second reading of the Plebiscite Bill, RUFUS POPE, M.P., said: — "For many years there has been a prohibition^aw in the State of Maine, and I do not think there is any State in the Union where you can find more Gold Cure Institutes (institutes for the cure of intemperance) and places of retreat for gentlemen who over-indulge, than you can find in that State." PRINCIPAL GRANT. In a letter to "The Globe," Principal Grant wrote : — "After long and earnest consideration, I have come to the conclusion that a Dominion prohibitory law would be hurtful to the causo of temperance, and most hurtful to general and private morality. Believing this, it is surely- my duty to vote ' No ' to the question, ' Are you in favour of prohibition?'" REV A. H. BALDWIN. In liLs evidence before the Canadian Royal Commission, the above reverend gentleman said :--" I have had experience of the working of the prohibitory law in Maine. I thought it was a great curse. It made people drunkards, hypocrites and sneaks. Under no circumstajices whatever would I favour the enactment of a prohibitory law in Canada. I believe it would be a great curse to the country in every way." Such is the evidence of men of practical experience of prohibition? What say mere theorists about this? 1988