MR. PAUL AND THE REV. F. W. ISITT.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume X, Issue 471, 3 August 1899, Page 18

MR. PAUL AND THE REV. F. W. ISITT.

On Tuesday, July 18, at New Plymouth, Mr Paul and Mr Isitt had a lively passage of arms. When Mr Paul came on the platform his reception was a cordial one. He said he would not have been present had not Mr Isitt published a letter in that night’s Herald referring to. himself. Scotchmen were proverbial for their discretion, and he did not think that he was an exception to the rule, nor did he think he could be fairly accused, as he had been, of temerity in tackling a gentleman of Mr Isitt’s qualifications as a lecturer. (Applause). He knew many people did not think those directly connected with the Trade should take part in such meetings, but apart from the matter of confiscation, his liberty and reputation were threatened, and he maintained he was quite within his rights. [A voice : Of course you are. ] Mr Isitt talked about justice. He (Mr Paul) had been in business about 40 years, and whatever profits he had accumulated and the expense and trouble he had been put to in building up a business would, if the Prohibition Party had their way, be swept away in one fell swoop. Was that justice ? [Voices: 44 No,” and 4 it’s one trade against the other”] The Crabbs, the Isitts, and Richardsons were there because they were hired for that particular purpose ; he was there because his liberty and what belonged to him were affected. At the same he felt a certain amount of delicacy, inasmuch as he might appear in the light of a suppliant against the tyranny of a certain fanatical section of the community. Mr Paul then proceeded to refer to the Hawera and Stratford meetings, stating that at the former place a fair hearing was given to both sides, while at Stratford the meeting was packed, and when he (the speaker) rose they howled round him like a pack of wolves. What, he continued, did prohibition in its entirety mean ? It meant the absolute prohibition of the importation, manufacture, and sale of liquor, while local option was a perfect absurdity. For example, if prohibition were carried here [Voices: 44 We’re going to,” 41 Go on,” ‘‘You haven’t a hope,” and uproar]—it would simply mean that we would be sacrificing ourselves in the interests of the adjacent districts. The brewers and whclesale places would be able to sell liquor in two-gallon quantities, giving the preference to the man of means over the poor man, who would be unable to obtain his glass of beer unless from the sly-grog shop, (Applause). As regards the Clutha, they had the evidence of a man like Mr Thomson, the Mayor, whos eword could surely be relied upon. His evidence conclusively proved that Clutha had not prospered since the carrying of 4 4 no license” and he could also bring other evidence corroborative of the statement, besides showing that drunkenness and immortality had not been mitigated, but had rather increased. What did they find at the present day thioughout the colony ? The people were becoming more sober, and drunkenness was on the decrease. The carrying of prohibition meant, practically speaking, the taking out of prohibition orders against the people, which was surely a confession of weakness. (Hear, Hear). He would also like to know who were the people running the prohibition movement. Were they the men who had borne the heat and burden of the day ? Had they done pioneer work ? [A voice : No.] But they were quite willing to join in the prosperity. They were, in fact, like horses who had been living on grass, and now they were on oats they were jumping Out of their skins. (Laughter and uproar). We could put up with that—we could allow them to participate in the general prosperity, but he for one objected to them dictating to him what he should eat and drink. It was only the thin end of the wedge, too. The next thing would be the prevention or smoking, the curfew bell would ring, and married men would be only allowed to look at their wives once a week. [Renewed uproar, in the midst of which sundry interjections were made. The Rev. Mr Serpell rose from his seat on the platform and said he objected, on behalf of the ladies, against such remarks. They were —]. Mr Paul: Pardon me. I meant no offence whatever, and I had no intention of hurting anyone’s feelings. “ Evil be to him who evils thinks.” I protest against my remarks being construed to suit the prohibition minds; J these men seem to be so warped that they are unable to place a proper construction on a simple re-

mark. [More uproar]. Anyone who knows me knows I am the last man in the world who would knowingly give .any offence to ladies. [Hear, hear, and applause.] Passing on, he said he could not say much concerning the majority of prohibitionists as specimens of the human race. They, could be easily picked out—the attenuated body, the puny face, and the hurried glance over the shoulder as though His Satanic Majesty were on their tracks. (Laughter). A glass of stout would do them a lot of good, but if he were tosay to the rev. lecturer that he was to take a glass he would naturally object. And yet they wanted to stop others from having a glass. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. Before closing he would like to refer to a past incident. When the Rev. Mr G-arland was here he made an accusation that a man had been robbed in two hotels of £7O. Since then he (Mr Paul) had got the connecting Itnk in the chain of evidence. The story first originated among some ladies, and was told to Mr White, who either told his father, who in turn told Mr Garland, or Mr White, junr., repeated the story directly. No hotels were mentioned by the ladies, and it was, either on the part of Mr White or Mr Garland, a pure fabrication to say that they were. He could prove his statement, and he challenged Mr White or anyone else to come there and then deny it. [Cheers and counter cheers.]