SOBRIETY BY FORCE OF LAW.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1800, 4 December 1862, Page 3

SOBRIETY BY FORCE OF LAW.

Thbbe- is a lamentable tendency in the present age to over legislation, and in no direction has this been so emphatically shown as in legal efforts to suppress the vice of drunkenness. Every one has heard of the Maine law in America, and how the ultra adv ucues of temperance there, thought they hal achieved a perfect triumph for their cause wheu they made the sale of intoxicating liquors a crime; hunted out the frequenters of the taprooms ; emptied the contents of the spirit casks ioto the street, and with a frantic fervor declared because ihey were virtuous, that " sack and sugar " was a sin, and tbat there should be no more " cakes and ale." Thinking men looked grave at this vigorous style of inculcating the doctrine of temperance, and faintly expressed doubts of its ultimate success, but their moderate assertions were drowned by tbe shouts of the new order of reformers, and it was left for the stern ordeal of time to show the absurdity of attempting to make men sober by Act of Congress. Nor did it take very long to bring about this result. For a short period, eveiy temperance periodical tbere, and iu the United Kingdom, sung a song of rejoicing over the model State of Maine, and anticipated that the work thus beguu would be carried out throughout the whole American continent. But soon " u change came o'er the spirit of the dream," rumouis of sinister import were bruited abroad that somehow people in that happy valley did. procure the means of intoxication, that sly grog shops had become a permanent iustilutiou, hideous in its Strength, and tbat drunkenness and insanity were more rife than ever. Matters were in this state, when Mr. J. B. Gough, the temperance orator paid a visit to England, and gave his emphatic testimony iu a private letter which found way into the press, " lhat the Maine Liquoi its Law was a decided failure," aud since then so little bas been heard from its advocates, that we opine it bas either been repealed or fallen into desuetude. Tbe lesson thus read does not however seem to bave been productive of much profit to the local solons of Canterbury, if one is to judge by certain clauses which have been introduced into the Public House Ordinance there, and which run as follows: — 1. If it shall be proved to the satisfaction of two Justices of the peace that any person has become an habitual drunkard, aud is injuring his health or wasting his substance by excessive drinking, such Justices shall thereupon issue a notice in writing under their hands, setting forth the name, personal appearance, calling, and usual placo of abode of such person , and prohibiting all persons from supplying to the person named in such notice any spirituous or fermented liquors whatever, and shall cause such notice to be published in all the newspapers, and a copy thereof to be sent to every holder o*" a license under this Ordinance within the Province. — 2. Every person who shall, during the space of two years after the date of such notice knowingly supply, or cause to be supplied to any person named in such notice, any intoxicating liquor of any kind, or in any quantity whatsoever, Bhall, upon conviction before any two Justices of the Peace, be liable to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for any period not exceeding three months : Provided, that it shall be. lawful for anyone to supply such liquor to the person named in such notice, upon the certificate in writing of two duly qualified medical practitioners that such liquor is required by such person as a medicine: and provided that such liquor shall have been supplied in such quantities and at such times only as those named in such certificate. Tbat. such clauses as those just quoted, should actually be the law of tbe land, is almost incredible. We wiU assume that the object intended to be attained, is the suppression of drunkenness, but can it be imagined for a single moment, that the means are adequate. Let the new moral police hale up the unfortunate sot, before two unpaid expounders of the law ; let hira be duly convicted of habitual intemperance, and his bloated countenance, red nose, bleared eyes, shrunken limbs, and tattered raiment be chronicled with photographic minuteness in all the newspapers ; let his name be published, his place of abode legally set forth, his usual trade oi calling indicated, and let the publicans be interdicted by fine and imprisonment from supplying him with drink. Do all this, yea more, and he will be a drunkard still. What could be procured openly before, will now be got in secret. Given tbe craving for the stimulant, the means of gratification will inevitably be obtained. It is of so use attempting to dam up human nature by a clumsy mechanical contrivance like this. It will find vent somewhere, and attempted co ercion by law, will raise such a spirit of antagonism, as will bring about inevitable and merited failure. The enthusiastic Temperance Reformer may tben ask, what is to be done with the drunkards? Are they to be allowed to proceed in their infatuated career, and wreck health, position, aud character, at the shiine of Bacchus. That is a problem we are not bound to solve, but it is quite clear tbat compulsion will not succeed. We must look to the Christian and the Philanthrophist, to do battie against the gin fiend, and abide with hope and patience, the result of their efforts. Our Temperance frieuds too bave already done much in tbe same direction, by precept and example, and it is by such means only that they ean hope for ultimate success. In their legitimate sphere, that of moral suasion, we accord them our heartiest support, but when as in the case of tbe Canterbury people, they try to enforce their dogmas by Magistrate's law, and policeman's baton, we tell tbem plainly, that it will not do. It is the assertion of a principle highly dangerous in itself, and wbich if carried out to its legitimate issues would render the liberty of the subject a sham, outrage the sanctity of private life, and initiate a system of police surveillance, but one degree remored from Austrian tyranny.