Licensed Victuallers’ Page.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 262, 1 August 1895, Page 9

Licensed Victuallers’ Page.

The Sporting Review and Licensed Victualuers’ Gazette has been appointed the Official Organ of the Trade. It offers special facilities for advertising, transfers and other official announcements, embracing as it does the extensive circulation of an already popular New Zealand and Australian sporting journal. Cheques, drafts, etc., and all business communications to be addressed to Arthur Cleave AND Co., Pulcan Lane, Auckland. Literary communications to the Editor.

The Editor will always be pleased to receive contributed items, paragraphs, sketches, or any brief article of interest to the trade. Communications intended for publication should be written in ink, and only on one side of the paper. Anonymous letters will be consigned to the waste-paper basket. ffjnsuitable contributions will not be returned unless a special request to that effect and stamps to cover the cost of postage be sent with them. The annual subscription to the Sporting Review and Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette will be 10[-, payable strictly in advance.

Mr. W. E. Hammond, late of Wellington “ Fair Play,” has been engaged as contributor and general representative throughout the colony.

BOTH SIDES.

“ Thebe is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides. It is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudice, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth by being exaggerated into falsehood.” The above is taken from John Stuart Mills’ treatise on “ Liberty,” and although written years ago by one of the greatest English dialecticians, might have been written but yesterday, so aptly does it apply to the prohibition movement at the present time. “Errors hardened into prejudice ’’—surely the sentence is most apropos. “ Truth ceasing to have the appearance of truth through being exaggerated into falsehood.” The sentiment fits the Prohibition Party as light fits the eye. Nothing could be more relevant, nothing more en rapport with the subject. John Stuart Mills’ writings were not merely for the period, but for succeeding periods. They were meant to shine out as a brilliant protest against brutal egotism, fanatical assertion, and autocratic —perhaps we might better say Pharasaic —despotism, as long as reason and charity can avail against bigotry and intolerance. His was the true sociological theory. There are always two sides to a,question. As reasoning men, let us place ourselves in the position of referees or judges, hear both sides impartially and devoid of prejudice, then we will be in a position to judge what is right and what is wrong, and with a clean conscience give oiir undivided support to that movement which we honestly believe is for the betterment of the race at large. Let us not allow individual and often exaggerated cases dim our judgment. Let us cast aside emotionalism, sensationalism, and kindred feelings, and judging clearly and disinterestedly, give a verdict on the subject of prohibition, taking into consideration the present state of affairs and the evils or advantages that would inevitably ensue were it an accomplished fact. On the one side the exponents of the prohibitionist party claim, imprimis, that the sale of alcoholic beverages is a curse to the country. To a certain extent there is a shadow of truth in the assumption (we would put it in rather a different style of phraseology) that an inordinate consumption or an excessive use of alcoholic beverages undoubtedly is inimical to the community at large. They claim that alcohol is one of the most pregnant evils the colony is saddled with. We say on the other side of the question that it is not all bad, but has its uses, which no other commodity can supply. Physiologists tell us that almost every article of food comprises a more or less quantity of alcohol, that as a gentle stimulant it is absolutely necessary to a healthy state of the body, and that its medicinal qualities are incontestable. They claim that by arbitrary laws people can be forced to be —not temperate, for that is not what thev wish—but total

abstainers. We claim that coercive measures have been tried both in America and Australia, and that in every case on record they have been a distinct failure. The very ract of telling a man or woman ... that he or she must, willy-nilly, conform to a certain edict, at once calls into play all the ingenuity of the person affected

to evade the law, particularly if the law is an infringement on the privileges of the individual. As reasoning beings we claim the right to weigh both sides of the question, and adjudicate on a subject that concerns us in a purely personal manner, and no man or party has a right to regulate our personal lives, unless our actions carry us into a zone where we intrude on the privileges of our neighbours. Is it fair, is it just, that a certain set of fanatics should have it within their province to regulate our lives according to their own peculiar tenets and ideas ? Are we become so besotted and degraded that a minority should say to us “ Thus shalt thou do and live, and no other path shall be given thee to choose ?” Emphatically we say : No, if my brother abhors liquor in any form I am willing to respect his principles and aid him in any way, hut if because of his theories he wishes to try force to compel me to practice his principles, I draw the line and say: No, lam endowed with a reason of my own and must follow its dictates, for even if I am obliged to obey your commands I will be at heart a hypocrite, and the compulsion will make me a worse man at heart, although my outward conduct may seem exemplary. ‘ Let me judge for myself, let. me hear both, sides of the question, let me come t<> a decision guided by mv own reasoning abilities and there will be at least a certain credit in my conversion, or as you might call it perversion. N either theories nor opinions can be forced down a man’s throat. Louis the Fourteenth tried it by his revocation of the Edict of Nantes and lost a great portion of the bone and sinew of France through the exodus of the Huguenots, many of whom, lukewarm in their religious principles previously, become as hard as adamant when pressure was brought to bear. All the tortures of the Inquisition in Spain under Torquemada could neither convert nor root out the Protestant feeling. In fact, history has shown us over and over again that coercive measures are invariably unsuccessful, and it seems almost incredible in view of these facts that in the nineteenth century in the provinces of civilized England an intolerant party like the prohibitionists can even get a hearing let alone go so far as to establish a combination that threatens to become a powerful hierarchy. It is a subject that demands the earnest consideration of every thinking man and it must not be looked upon from a biassed point of view, but from “ both sides of the question.” 'We say nothing of the loss to the revenue that prohibition would entail, and that at a time when New Zealand can hardly be spoken of as a prosperous colony. We pass by the wide-spread financial misery that would ensue.. We do not take into account the natural swelling of the ranks of the unemployed that would inevitably follow. We do not even refer to the increase of drunkeness and criminality that has occurred in the Clutha where the experiment of total prohibition was tried. We simplv sav,look into the question, test its capabilities both pro and con, and from a purely dispassionate point of view give an equitable decision. Give it as men and Englishmen and not as herds of unreasoning voters driven to the polls by sensational and emotional speakers, actuated, we are led to believe, by a desire for cheap notoriety and the privilege of living luxuriously at the expense of a blinded public, who, besotted by oratorical pyrotechnics. in their frenzy refuse to hear both sides of the question. < .

SHOWING HOW PROHIBITION PROGRESSES IN THE SOUTH.

The Otago Daily Times has taken those extremists in Prohibition, Messrs Isitt and Taylor, severely to task in a very trenchant leading article for their recent conduct towards the Premier. Then the Omaru Mail, perhaps, the most fiery advocate in the colony of temperance and licensing reform, has found that the demands of the prohibitionists have proved too much for it. The latter journal says that the report of the Temperance Convention in convinces it that the rabid prohibitionist is a one-idea person. It believes that the Isitte and the Gilbert Carsons would pass a law against a rainfall if it rained beer. They cling to the insane notion that all that is required to make the people of New Zealand ardent teetotallers in their hearts as well as in their appetites is a law promulgated or countenanced by Mr Seddon. They are trying to discern things through the wrong end of the telescope. If they would only look through the correct end > they■ would see. .it is not. within the Premier’s power to influence, the people against their will to abandon.cherished habitsand prejudices.

Then in the Christchurch Opera House a very livelv meeting took place recently for the purpose of expressing indignation re the conduct of certain prominent extreme prohibitionists. The house was completely filled, the prohibition party being sufficiently numerous to make matters lively. The chairman, Mr T. Gapes, regretted the occasion for the meeting had arisen, but certain scurrilous accusations had been made against some of the principal men in the city and it was only fair and British-like to give the « the opportunity of answering such charges. Mr Davis in moving the first resolution charged the leaders of the prohibition party with having recently gone about with bibles in their hands and lies upon their lips and by their actions had constituted themselves moral blowflies. He would say to them “ You "can do as you like in your churches and your private meetings but you shall not insult our women or our representatives at any public meeting in Christchurch.” His motion read “That this meeting resents the untrue unwarrantable, and cowardly imputations cast upon Mr W. W. Collins, M.H.R for the city, by a prominent prohibitionist.” This was seconded and carried amidst vociferous cheering and waving of handkerchiefs, etc. by the ladies present. Then Mr Watt, prohibitionist, attempted to speak, but was not allowed a hearing and retreated after a snowball had been hurled in his direction. Mr Hornsby stepped into the breach and said t hat no one wished to say a word against those who were honestly working to uplift their fellow men. He trusted nobody would attempt to abuse those engaged in such noble endeavour. But if in the carrying out of that work the good name or fair fame of men and women were dragged in the mire it would bring discredit upon the work and end in disaster as it richly deserved. He moved “ That this meeting desires to express the conviction that the statements made at the public meeting on Monday evening last to the effect that ‘ so far as harlots, drunkards, and gamblers were concerned at the last elecuion W. W. Collins scooped the pool,’ is without the slightest foundation, a scurrilous and dastardly attack upon a public man in his absence and a slanderous reflection upon the large body of electors who worked and voted for the gentleman in question.” Regarding this and other slanderous accusations made he would quote the words of the Nazarene “ Whoso is without sin among you let him cast the first stone.” The resolution having been carried Mr R. Winter said a most unwarrantable attack had been made on the police in the person of Mr Broham. The words applied to him meant either that he went about in a drunken condition or that the publicans had bribed him. No one outside the prohibitionists believed either charge. He moved “ That this meeting request, their representatives in Parliament to call the attention of the Minister ,of Defence to the statement made to the following effect:—‘lt appears to me that Mr Broham’s eyesight is effected by the fumes of liquor and cannot see when he gets near a pub.,’ and that some action be taken against the person who uttered it, if such statement be proved false.” A man in the dress circle, who is believed to be credited with this utterance called out “ I will secorid that,” whereupon an uproar took place. The motion was carried, as also another, to the effect that in the opinion of the meeting anyone capable of the utterances in question is totally void of all sense of decency and honour, and that the time has arrived when legislation is necessary, making utterance of untruths and slanderous statements- at public meetings an indictable offence. During the meeting there was some interruption and feeling ran high, but the resolutions were all carried.

In consequence of the feeling caused by the recent extraordinary proceedings by prominent prohibitionists and the reports that have appeared in connection therewith, the Rev. F. W. Isitt has felt it incumbent upon him to deny certain of the statements that have been attributed to him. This he has done in the form of a statutory declaration, in which he asserts that the statements recently made by the Premier in connection with the prohibitionist deputation are absolutely untrue.” In the declaration he demes having said that.his only mission in life was to destroy the Government in general and the Premier in particular. This he characterises as a wilful and deliberate falsehood.” This “ declaration, in effect, is, according to law equivalent to the administration of an oath. It remains to be seen what steps Mr Seddon will take to confute the

The Otago Licensed Victuallers’ Association have presented their late secretary (Mr John Golder) with a valedictory address and a cheque on his retiring from office. At a social gathering at the Mornington Hotel Mr Golder, in returning thanks, stated that he was gratified to have lived long enough to see his prognostication verified—that prohibition would be found a failure. He had witnessed the intolerance of prohibitionists in the land of its birth. He also alluded to the miserable failure it had been in the Clutha district, and to the prohibition element on the Dunedin Licensing Committee exercising its own sweet will in giving a monopoly of the business to three-fourths of the trade, without the slightest discrimination and without reducing the drinking habits of the people, as shown by the customs returns, without mentioning the reduction of the municipal revenue. HERE AND THERE. Mr H. O. Caulton, brother of Mr Caulton of the Central Hotel of Auckland, has the Pacific Hotel in Hastings. It is the resort of most of the sporting men in the district, and Host Caulton. whose knowledge of sporting matters in general is variegated and extensive, is a great favo.urite with the. fraternity. "The bar room, commercial room, and private rooms are ornamented with a variety of pictures and caricatures by some of the best known caricaturists and artists in New Zealand and Australia. Mr Caul-

ton has one series of caricatures of the different bookmakers of Melbourne framed. They are by Lascelles of Victoria, who was famed in Australia . for his marvellous ingenuity in hitting off a face with a few strokes of his pen, so that it could not fail to be recognised, grossly caricatured as it might be. The collection which Mr Oaulton has in his possession is now a very valuable one, as Lascelles’ pictures are eagerly sought for, and high prices paid for them in Australia at the present time. They are well worth a visit by any one who happens to be in the vicinity of Hastings. In the Nineteenth Century for May, Mr. T. 0. Down gives et An Object Lesson in Prohibition, ’ and he says that the experiment tried in the North-West Territory was a dead failure. “ Smuggling,” says Mr. Down, “ was reduced to a fine art. . . . . As to the public in general, not a single festivity or gathering of any description was thought to be complete without a liberal supply of whiskey ; dances, picnics, public entertainments, concerts, agricultural dinners and farmers’ meetings, election speeches and the humble Methodist tea party —none of these was considered satisfactory by the man unless the necessary libations were to be had. It was not always an easy matter to get spirits on the spot, but I never knew a case where perseverance did not meet with its reward. When all other plans failed and everyone solemnly assured the enquirer that there' was not a drop in the town,’ a doctor was an unfailing resource. But the smuggling of liquor and a general contempt for the law were mere sentimental evils in comparison with the direct inducements to drunkenness which were fostered by the law, whether the liquor was obtained in accordance with its provisions or in direct defiance of them. .... When everything else failed, a quack medicine called ‘ Painkiller,’ which contained a quantity of alcohol, would be resorted to; or bottles of preserved ginger, and anytheng else from which olcohol could be obtained, would be made use of, and a horrible drink concocted out of these. Such are the devices to which men are driven when they are prevented from obtaining liquor in the usual manner. As a matter of fact, I never saw so much drunkenness, and that of an aggravated sort, as I encountered in these territories under the prohibitive law, and I have known many men to be absolutely ruined by the habits contracted or encouraged under its regime.” The Rev. Frank W. Isitt has recently indited a lengthy letter to the Christchurch press as a sort of apology for the action he took in the late “ Christian Endeavour ” prosecutions, wherein members of his congregation took up the roll of rollicking rams on Sunday evenings persuaded Christchurch hotelkeepers to supply them with whiskey in order that they might inform against them for breaking the law. Mr. Isitt, finding that, as he terms it, “the floodgates of criticism ” had been opened on the course he adopted, makes his apology —“ A response to the cry that arose from the ground stained with the blood of his drink-slain fellow-creatures.” In order to prevent these “ drink-murders ” a commission was formed, but he states extreme prohibitionists withdrew from sitting on the commission in favour of men who were deemed to be more moderate. That was how the task .of adducing evidence devolved on him. Having made this admission he goes on to say that he had nothing to do with the informers’ crusade until after the serious slip had been made bythem of stating they were travellers when they were not. This he endeavours to describe as “transparent truthfulness.” “It was a blunder from the standpoint of policy and morality ” (not to put tod fine a point upon it). Mr. Isitt, however, states he was no party to it. He was simply an accomplice after the fact. But he did not discourage them ; why should he ?” he asks. Yet, good man as he is, he warned them of the odium they would incur (after it was done), and urged on them the necessity of their refraining from anything that had in it a tinge of deceit. This was good, kind pastorly advice. Having made this explanation and denial Mr. Isitt concludes thuslv : “At the same time I, and the mass of Christchurch prohibitionists, have no intention of turning from our more hopeful work, to waste our energies on vain endeavours to regulate the traffic. For myself and comrades I may promise that we shall not seek to enforce the regulation of the traffic, not that we question the morality of such efforts, but that we shall seek, not the mending, v but the ending of a trade which everywhere defies restraint.” Thus endeth the first chapter. It will be observed that he expresses no sorrow for the serious consequences that have resulted from the proceedings to his followers, while from the evidence adduced during the hearing of the cases no sensible person will believe that the Rev. Mr. Isitt “ had not a hand in it.”