PROHIBITION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 283, 26 December 1895, Page 13

PROHIBITION.

The events which have recently transpired in the Clutha district proves most conclusively that, the trial of prohibition in this part of New Zealand has been an entire failure, and demonstrates the oftexpressed opinion “ that it is impossible to prevent, the people of the colony from using alcoholic liquors by the most stringent law that the legislature can place on the statute book.” In fact, the recent trials for sly grog selling in Clutha shows that it will require an army of detectives to even keep the sale of intoxicants in check, and whilst we are ready to admit that at the last licensing election the vote in the Clutha district was. largely in favour of prohibition, we are at the same time satisfied that an object lesson has been supplied by the trial of prohibition which will be noted by moderate people from one end of New Zealand to the other, amongst whom ■ there will be a consensus of opinion that the failure predicted has been more than' realised. The election referred to in Clutha was conducted- under the provisions,- of the act passed in the last New Zealand parliament, which has been virtually repealed by? the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act of last session, which, however, does not come into force until the General Election takes place at the expiry of the present parliament, and we have no doubt that the prohibitionists and those opposed to them will carefully consider the whole situation, the former from a mere political

or sentimental point of view ; the latter

from the more tangible and realistic aspect, viz., those of large vested interests, which, like every other form of real estate, deserves to have some security from the .State, which has been described as an “ aggregation of individuals.” It is somewhat premature to positively forecast what the effect of the next election

will be on the liquor traffic of the colony, but we think it is safe to state that already, some of the foremost thinkers of the colony are changing their opinions on the question. Amongst these is the young and brilliant member for Inangahua, Mr O’Regan, who.on the 24th of last month addressed a large meeting of his electors at Cape Foul wind. For years past Mr O’Regan (a young New Zealander) has by voice and pen advocated prohibition by bare majorities, and on a strict prohibition ticket he ran the : bye election for, Inangahua unsuccess-

fully, against Sir Robert Stout, who, by the bye, had the support of the trade on that occasion)j and who successfully contested the Inangahua seat at the -last General Election on the ‘‘ prohibition by a bare majority ticket.” Mr O’Regan is a powerful speaker, and his oratory has been used in the advocacy of the principles he has for years supported. But he is honest to the core; he is known to his intimate friends as one of those who sticks to his principles until he is convinced of error, and then does not consider it any evidence of-weakness to publicly slatethat he has been wrong in the past, and has yielded to the belief that it was right and honest to change. This estimate of Mr O’Regan’s character will be endorsed by our readers on their perusal of the following extract from his recent speech, which occupied two hours in delivery and which was received with great enthusiasm by a crowded meeting :—“ Mr O’Regan spoke at length on the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment The chief features of the Act were that the provision as to the moiety vote was abolished and only the votes recorded would in future be counted. Three issues only were submitted to the electors instead of nine as under the main Act. Whether licenses should be prohibited, whether reduced, or whether tho sale of liquor shouid be prohibittd. Prohibition could only be carried by a three fifths majority, He had voted when the Bill was in committee, for the bare majority in local prohibition. This was in accordance with his pledge at the last election ; but he took the. opportunity of intimating that he would not vote for the bare majority again. Since the last election he had made the most careful enquiry. He wrote to Mr Henry George, who was in a good position to state the facts as to the effect of prohibition in America, and the reply was that in America prohibition did not prohibit, except were the people were temperate. Mr Larke. the Canadian Trades Commissioner, whom he met in Wellington recentfv, told him exactly ' the same as to Canada, although Mr Larke was himself a total abstainer and prohibitionist Mr Davitt confirmed this and told him that in his (Mr Davitt’s) opinion prohibition could not be effective unless carried by a three-fourths majority. He had voted, however, to keep his pledge as an honourable man should. Temperance should certainly be inculcated, especially in the minds of the young, as they were easy to influence, and it was foolish, if not criminal, to ignore the magnitude of the evil of intemperance. It was better and manlier, however, to inculcate self-control and self reliance. If Chinese tradesmen were a curse let us not deal with them ; if drink were bad let us leave it alone. If there were more of this spirit abroad there would be less need for legislation.” We have already alluded to the fact that Mr O’Regan is a young New Zealander, and from a personal acquaintance we can say that physically,. mentally, and morally he is a credit to the land of his birth. And it is quite refreshing to hear such sound and vigorous expressions of opinion from such a man. And we have no doubt that in expressing them he was in some degree resenting the dire unmitigated insult cast upon his “ compeers,” the youth of New Zealand, when a rabid prohibitionist told the Premier that the young New Zealanders were growing up drunken and dissolute. At any rate Mr O’Regan is certainly on the right track when he gives expression to the opinion quoted and endorses the views of the statesmen he named.