Original Correspondence.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1792, 15 November 1862, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

Oob columns being impartially open, we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents. No notice can be taken of anonymous communications. Correspondents must therfore furnish ,their name and address, not necessarily for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. " Let him that thinketh he staudeth, take heed lest he fall." To the Editor of the Wellington Independent. Sib,-— In reading the leading article which appeared in your paper of the (Ith, headed " The Temperance Theory," I see that you talk of the extravagant words and deeds of the friends of Total abstinence. But if every cause is to be condemned which msy have had unwise or uncharitable advocates, every form of Christianity would be repudiated. The folly of an adherent proves nothing against the goodness of his cause, unless the folly be proved to be bound up in the principles of the cause itself. Some Teetotalers may have acted unwisely, spoken harshly, dogmatically, and uncharitably, and pushed their principles to an extravagant excess; but does this prove their principles to be unsound? The only wonder is, that there has been so little that is reprehensible in the advocacy of the cause, when it is remembered how much it has been deserted by the more educated and reflecting classes, especially christian ministers. ' A little further on in the article you ask this question, why should the teetotaller press his principles on the moderate drinkers ? I can only answer this by asking another, viz . What are the bounds of moderation ? I suppose your principles are these. By taking one glass, I sanction no one in taking two. By using wine, Ido not become responsible for others abusing it. Let others act as I do, and there wid be no drunkards. But are you sure of this, taking your words most literally? Would there be no drunkards if none exceeded the limits of those who drink without becoming inebriate ? On the contrary, will not that which produces no visible effect on one person ofteu completely prostrate another ? Are there not many who cah without any visible effect, take a quantity of liquor, one fourth of which would make others reel and stagger ? Many would say, that two glasses of wine at once, is extreme moderation ; but there are many others who could not bear up under the influence of even such a potation ; not a few on whom the effect of one glass would be painfully visible. Even the objector himself would be a drunkard if he followed the example of some others, who exceed his own limitations, and yet are esteemed sober men. As my letter is getting rather long, and I saw in your last that '• brevity is the soul of wit," I will now conclude by reminding you of the words of St, Paul. •• All things are lawful to me, but I will not eat meat, nor drink wine, however lawful, if thereby others are injured." A. L. L, [Our correspondent is in error in assuming that onr remarks were directed against the teetotallers as a body. We alluded to the absurdity of the reformed toper laying down the law to people who never committed an excess in their lives. Besides there is a higher virtue and self-control shown in " moderation " than can ever be evinced in Total Abstinence. Would it be well to remove the opportunity for its exercise ? — Ed. W. I.]