MR. DURHAM AND MR. TAFT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXIV, Issue 17735, 8 December 1919, Page 8

MR. DURHAM AND MR. TAFT.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —For pure unadulterated shuttling let me commend what purports to be a reply by Mr Durham to my comments on his associating exPresicient Taft with the opponents of Prohibition. It is evident Mr Durham has not taken the opportunity of perusing the article I referred to or he would have thought twice before making himself an object of ridicule. If he is shy of interviewing you I am prepared to state, for the benefit of your readers, that the five-column article by ex-President Taft I lay stress upon, is contained in America's leading monthly— the Ladies' Home Journal for May, 1919 —slightly n\ore up to date than the 1914 issue of Everybody's quoted from by Mr Durham. The magazine circulates widely and I would suggest the local Prohibition Party obtain the article for reprint and distribution. As you have at Mr Durham's request published an | extract from one of Mr Taft's books ! (which, however, is ultra vires) may 11 impose on you to the extent of | publishing the following further extract from the article I have already quoted from? ". . But some may [ask: If this is true, why were you personally opposed to the National Prohibition Amendment? Because I thought Prohibition would not prohibit throughout the country, in localities where the community did not favour it. I thought it was properly a State matter an.- not a Federal matter. I feared it would increase the power of the central Government, already too much swollen. The danger of the possible sinister use of the army of new officials needed in politics would be great. Moreover, the failure to enforce the law might demoralise the influence of all laws. The regulation from Washington of personal habits in States opposed to the law might strain the union between the States. The issue of rigid or lax enforcement, injected into every election, would divert calm public judgment from other great and critical national issues upon which the minds of the people should be poncentrated. . . But in spite of all this the people have spoken. This is a democracy. The amendment has been adopted and with all good citizens I am strongly in favour of the enactment of the most practical laws to secure the rigid enforcement of the declarations of the amendment. This is the duty of every citizen in a democracy. . . Therefore, whatever my former view, "i am strongly in favour now of putting the amendment to a test as favourable as possible for its successful operation. Then if my fears prove to be unfounded I shall be the first to admit this and be glari that they have been show nto be erthat they have been shown to be erment is enforced, as already said, the deprivation will fall most heavily on those recently from other countries, where "beer and wine and liquor have been part.of their lives.

In the old countries the consumption may not have been so injurious as it certainly is here. For a time these peoplo will resent the deprivaition. But as they imbibe the American spirit instead of American liquor, ar. they find their savings increase and their children learn the duty of American citizenship and American customs, they will find themselves to ba the part of the community most highly improved by this lawful impairment of their peilsonal liberty." Anstralia's orator, it would appear, is antedeluvian in regard to his information and he might as well realise that bluff will v.ot win his cause support. It is just this bluff which will bring about the downfall of the Trade, notwithsanding its exhibition of bravado. Anyhow, there is sufficient experience locally to warrant everyone who stands for efficiency, striking out the two top lines, and striking them out hard. —I am, etc., DON Q.