TEETOTAL AGITATORS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 813, 5 October 1905, Page 23

TEETOTAL AGITATORS.

That the ways of the professional teetotaller are tortuous and littered with mendacity is an axiom known to all who have condescended to enter into controversy with him. The stock-in-trade of the ordinary prohibitionist agitator appears to consist of a vivid and somewhat prurient imagination, combined with an imperturbable impudence that only the ignorance and mental deficiency of his immediate followers render possible. It is also true (says the Australian “ Brewers’ Journal”) that the fanatic, be he teetotaller or any other extremist, is eternally jumping at conclusions conjured up in his small, overwrought brain, and his action founded thereon becomes the more unscrupulous and unreasonable in exact proportion to his educational status. Your supposed-to-be-cultured agitator thus becomes more dangerous than the ordinary ranter. The number of untruths uttered since the inception of the prohibitionist agitation are uncountable, and point distinctly to the fact that the zealots are callous to a degree as to the means they use to attain their ends. Thorne, in his “ Heresies of Teetotalism,” tells of “a brother from New York State who entertained us with the account of an incendiary society organised in that State to burn down distilleries and other buildings.” And Mr. Thorne further on says that what struck him most was, that those present (all teetotallers) took no exception to the code of morality implied in the statement. It is therefore probable that to members of the Victorian Alliance the utterance of a “ rousing whid” is, as confessed by the president, “ not such a terrible thing.” In Melbourne recently a certain drythroated beauty from New Zealand gave vent to the following remarks about the trade: —“We have given the liquor traffic every opportunity to make itself respectable. We have given certain persons only the right to trade, and have hedged it round with restrictions. In spite of all, it is bad, it is lawless, it is filthy. Then it comes along to us and it pleads it should not be hurt.” A pretty good sample of blackguardism that, and yet the creatures who make such statements are blindly followed by a certain section of the community who hang on their every word as gospel.

At the Palmerston North S.M. Court recently, a man was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour for throwing a glass full of beer at a barman at the Central Hotel. The assault appears to have been quite unprovoked, and the barman was badly cut about the head with the shattered glass.

Liquor and license were burning questions in Wellington even in 1858, remarks the “ Post.” Two petitions appear in the proceedings of the sixth session of the Provincial Council, held in that year. In those days, it appears, anyone could sell up to two gallons of alcoholic liquors without a license; and twenty-three licensed victuallers petitioned in protest. The other petition came from ninty-six people of different views with the names of James Buller (Wesleyan minister) and Joshua Smith (Primitive Methodist minister) in the forefront. They called attention to “the alarming amount of intemperance prevalent in this tow’n,” and asked that no more licenses be granted, “ and for the more effectually closing public-houses on the Sabbath.” The petitioners assert “ that there is in this town alone, which, according to the census taken a few months ago, contains 2012 persons above the age of 15 years, 22 houses for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and three more in the immediate neighbo tirhood. ”

The great resort in Wellington for members of the profession is the new “ Zealandia Private Hotel,” Cambridge Terrace, corner of Courteney Place, where many members of the company now performing at the Theatre Royal are now staying. The house is up-to-date in every way, and trams for all quarters start from the corner close to front entrance. The centre of the town can be reached on foot comfortably under ten minutes. Mrs. Bushett, the lessee, is an ideal hostess, who understands the happy combination of hotel and private life.

Mrs. Berghan’s hotel, Mangonui, was the scene of a meeting last wee.* of a large number of residents interested in the reorganising of the local cricket club. A special vote of thanks was passed during the evening to Mrs. Berghan, who has generously handed over a ,:iece of ground on her property foi* the la j ing down of a concrete pitch.

At the Federal Hall, Wellesley-street, on Saturday evening, a large audience assembled to heai - Mr. J. Dixon Ward’s anti-prohibition address. Mr. Ward first dealt with the Scriptural side of the question, and then went on to point out how dismally the efforts of prohibitionists had failed in the various American States that had been misled by their statements. Life insurance societies frequently made a difference, and had a temperance section and a general section. The New Zealand Government Life Insurance Department adopted that system for a number of years, and in the returns the sections were divided up till 1896. He was informed that, until 1896, when the sections were amalgamated, no policy-holder in the temperance section ever received a bonus, while the others did. It was absolute fact that the mortality tables proved, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the general section was the longer lived. The average life in the temperance section was 41.7 years, and in the other section 49.4 years. (Applause.) This principle was not confined to New Zealand, for the British Medical Journal published particulars of an exhaustive inquiry, and proved that moderate users of alcohol lived longest. The figures published in the London ‘‘ Daily Telegraph” showed the average ages as: Moderate drinkers, 63 years 13 days, and total abstainers, 51 years 21 days. Thus, by compelling abstinence the prohibitionists not only robbed men of their privileges, but also of portion of their lives. (Laughter and applause.) Referring to the often-repeated opinion (of the injurious effects of alcohol) given by Sir Frederick Treves, the lecturer said Sir F. Treves was, after all, a surgeon, and not a physician, and went on to point to many eminent physicians, such as Dr. Thomas Dutton, Sir Dyce Duckworth, Sir James Paget, and. Dr. A. Wilson, in contradiction of Sir F. Treves’ opinion. The opinions of the best thinkers of the world and the whole evidence was against the principle of local option. z- * *

Mr. Ward then dealt with the alleged prosperity of Ashburton, and pointed out how distorted the statements made by the prohibitionists were. He instanced Hamilton as a town which was going ahead faster than Ashburton, to show that the progression of Ashburton was not due to prohibition. Not one shilling of the prosperity of Ashburton was due to nolicense, for no-license had decreased the hotel values by £9OOO a year, so that over £lB,OOO worth of property had been confiscated in Ashburton. If they decreased, by law, the rental value of a man’s property, they confiscated portion of his capital, so that £lB,OOO worth of property in Ashburton had actually been confiscated. By doing this the prohibitionists were committing a breach of the commandmant which said, “ Thou shalt not steal.” If it was wrong for an individual to steal, it was wrong for a majority to steal the property of a minority. (Applause.) The modern rendering of the commandment, according to the prohibitionists, was: “Thou shalt not steal, except from a brewer or publican.” Sir John Logan Campbell had donated a-quarter of a million worth of property to the people of this city. (Loud applause.) (A voice: Got it out of beer, and laughter.) No, he did not get it out of beer, but out of general merchandise, long ago. This great gift, said the lecturer, had been given by Sir J. Logan Campbell to the people of Auckland for all time, and the donor kept for. himself only his shares in a business, which happened to be a brewery. Now the prohibitionist proposed to confiscate what little Sir John had left. (Applause). Thou shalt not steal, said the prohibitionist, except from a brewer or publican. (Loud applause). The Government of New Zealand had imported, at great expense, an expert to build up the wine industry, which the prohibitionists would destroy.

That industry would settle the very best class of citizens on the land, and result in the very high and profitable cultivation of the country for vinegrowing, and it would, or should, take its place amongst the most important of New Zealand industries. The German indemnity of 200 millions was paid by the small French vinegrowers in a few weeks. (Applause.) He also spoke of danger that would be caused by prohibition, through driving tourist traffic from the colony. In conclusion, he called upon the people, in the name of their hope for prosperity and success in the future, to vote against the unrighteous law of prohibition, and to see that, election after election, a smaller vote was cast for no-license, until the provision was wiped off the Statute Book. (Applause.) Aftex- having answered several questions, the lecturer was accorded a vote of thanks for his address.