THE PROHIBITION PUZZLE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 715, 19 November 1903, Page 23

THE PROHIBITION PUZZLE.

The prohibitionists are in a hole, and, to do them justice, they appear to know it. What they say to the consumers of alcoholic liquors to-day is just this : “We do not intend to stop your grog, so long as you are of any use to us in the stopping of othei people’s, but Iso sopn as possible we mean to have a turn at you.” They would not have admitted this had not their hands been forced by the Premier, and even so we are under no obligation to subscribe to the “bona fides” of the admission. It has been made with the object of proving that the cold water party are consistent, but the electors will want much better evidence. The special pleading of the Reverend Frank Isitt will, we think, deceive nobody. Knowing, as he must, that the people know that national prohibition is impossible, he pretends that no attempt will be made to prohibit the use of liquor as a beverage until national prohibition has been carried. As a sample of specious reasoning the whole of the recently issued “Manifesto” is worth reprinting in this place. Mr Isitt savs :—

“There is, absolutely no difference between the terms ‘no-license’ and ‘prohibition,’ as they are understood by the prohibitionist leaders themselves. By ‘no-license’ they mean that the people shall be persuaded to vote for the abolition of licenses to sell liquor. By ‘prohibition’ they mean that people shall be persuaded to vote for the prohibition of the liquor traffic. As, however, the word ‘prohibition’ is so easily misunderstood, and is apt to take a British community agajinst the grain, tjhesre been an increasing tendency to use the phrase that is more easily understood. Now, as to the effects of the no-license or prohibition policy, in the mind of the intelligent prohibitionist there is, always a reluctance to interfere with the liberty of the individual to determine whether he will or will not drinjk alcoholic liquors, and he ignores that reluctance ionly because of his realisation of the gigantic evils that result from the traffic in intoxicating drinks. He therefore says to the drinker ; ‘Your claim to liberty to drink must be sacrificed to the rights of the community to determine that the sale of liquor you want shall not be licensed because of its evil effects upon the community.’ ‘lf,’ ! they say, ‘you can devise any scheme by which people can be protected from the evil of this traffic and you can yet exercise your liberty to drink, ;well and good, but-as long tr- the two clash your individual liberty must give place to the people’s well-being.’ Even under colonial prohibition it would be the wish of clear-sighted prohibitionists (to let individuals, brew, under limitation, for their own consumption, and to manufacture home-made wine for the same purpose if it were possible. It is impossible simply because of the utter lawlessness of liquor sellers,, and certainly that liberty that was designed for the convenience of the individual would be turned into an occasion of flagrant lawbreaking. ‘Therefore,’ they say, ‘when we can carrv colonial no-license it must be absolute. Save and except for sacramental, medical and manufacturing purposes there shall be no liquor imported into or manufactured and sold in the colony. The thing then can be enforced, because with Customs officers guarding against importation, and the police against illicit manufacture, the task of maintaining prohibition; would not be an arduous one, but when no-license is piece-meal, and is carried in sections of the colony, it would be manifest absurdity to attempt to prevent those who live in a no-license area from obtaining liquor for home consumption, because we want a common-sense policy proposal that intelligent people can vote with some conception of its practicability.”

This remarkable document carries with it, to a certain extent, its own commentary. It suggests many things, > and amongst others, these : Why, if national prohibition is to be a condition precedent to the absolute cessation of our drinking habits, do the prohibitionfists continue to insist upon fihe closure of the King Country to the trade ? And, how comes it that whereas no man or woman is to be trusted to make goose-

berry wine for fear that he or she mlight be tempted to sell it, Customs officers and .policemen are placed in the categcrg of the impeccable ? The phrase, “manifest absurdity,” is frequently in the mouths of the prohibitionists, but the thing is invariably to :be found in their clothes.