The Star. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1922. WET OR DRY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16847, 25 September 1922, Page 6

The Star. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1922. WET OR DRY.

Th© first attacks delivered by Mr “Pussyfoot” Johnson appear to have* left his audiences cold. He is not a brilliant speaker, though h© is not without a fair platform equipment. The material which he brings with him is not precisely new, as much of it has been unloaded on the New Zealand public by various prohibition publicity agencies. It is astounding that there should be so many and so diverse stories about the effect of the dry lawin America. Liven New 7 Zealanders who corns back from visits to the States are not by any means unanimous. There is a sufficiency of evidence, however, to show that the lawis opposed by a very considerable section of the great republic, and that it is both resisted and defied. There is .* strong movement in favour of the ivd mission of light wines and oeer, and it is quite possible that/ this will find expMession in the introduction of ft licensing system. In the meantime, however, the supply of alcohol is largely in the hands of ‘ f bootleggers.” or sly-grog importers and sellers, who find the business a profitable and not an excessively dangerous one. The second place is taken by the makers .pf “ hooch,” or “ home brew 7 ,” which ap pears to be one of the principal in door occupations of the American suburbanite. The “ hooch ” makers are the standing jokes of the American humorous journals, and if they archalf as numerous as they are depicted the Land of Liberty and wooden nutmegs is not likely to experience the full effects of the alcoholic drought. Mr Johnson's mission is an invitation to New Zealand to follow in the footsteps of the United States and vote the country dry. Such an invitation must induce his audiences to direct a critical eye to the condition of the country which is quoted as the exemplar. Is there anything attractive in the condition of America to-day ? She has most of the world's gold, and is ! demanding more of it from the impov- ! erished nations of Ffurope which rej duced themselves to bankruptcy during ; the three years when America was “ too proud to fight.” Tire riches accumulated have not made her people happy or contented—the cables have related the stories of strikes and labour troubles in which murder and slaughter wore mere commonplaces. The scandal of child labour in the “ dry n country is a crying cxne, the remiMlyins, of which would have reflected more credit on the American citizenry than the carrying of prohibition. It should be realised also that the United States are not, in sentiment or blood, allied to Britain. Mr Johnson, in a recent speech, referred to the States as Britain's eldest daughter.” If he said that oil an American platform, to an ordinary work-a-day American audience, he would be promptly, and perhaps violently corrected. Tlic old pride of British ancestry has disappeared in the States, and the ordinary sentiment is one of positive hostility towards Britain. This is patently revealod whenever a question affecting relations with Britain comes up. The question of war debts, for instance, would be easily settled in America if it were not for tho fact that Britain is a debtor, and any statesman who proposed to remit a dollar of Britain’s account would l>e dragged from office and pushed into the outer darkness. Tho fact is that prohibition in America is imposed on a people who are essentially distinct from our own race It may suit them, and Britons will wish them joy of it. It is a different thing vben it comes nearer home, and the people of the Dominion will no doubt reflect that what may suit Mr Johnson’s crazy-quilt of nationalities is not much use to the old British stock.