CORRESPONDENCE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXIV, Issue 17731, 3 December 1919, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

PROHIBITION. (To the Editor.) Si tj —AntWßosh —whoever he may De —writes an absurd ,niogical and entirely partisan letter re Dr. Fyffe in yesterday's issue. He accuses Dr. Fyffe of expressing an opinion on behalf of the Liquor Trade. The Rev. Blamires, from his pulpit on Sunday evening, expressed the view that Dr. Fyffe was fighting for liquor so that his thirst should be assuaged after December 17th. Now, Sir, it is hard to believe that a Britisher should be abused for having the courage to express Lis opinions. • Personally I am striving to prove (the fallacy of prohibition. As an Australian poltician and an earnest student of the liquor question, I am speaking to Wanganui audiences in the conviction that prohibition is wrong. But I resent being abused, and defy "Anti-Bosh" and the Rev! Blamires to state that because I have the courage of my convictions that I am fighting on behalf of the liquor traffic or that I am an ignorant individual. I would remind both gentlemen that Gladstone, Bishop of Hereford, Bishop Magee, Professor Leacock, President Taft, Archbishop Redwood, Mr Gompers, etc., are neither ignorant nor paid by the "Trade," yet they are all against prohibition. And yet again, do these gentleman accuse your soldiers of fighting for the liquor trade? As a British subject I claim the right of expressing my opinion without being subject to abuse from any who hold other views.—l am, etc., GEORGE DURHAM. 1/12/19.