The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIV, Issue 842, 26 April 1906, Page 20

The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

DOES IT PROHIBIT.

The free hand with which prohibition orders have been dealt out in Auckland recently, principally by Judge Ke:tle, has attracted a good deal of attention. From ppiice statistics we find that each ordet emails a considerable am.u,.t of clerical work, added to which is the time taken up for the efficient delivery of a copy of these orders to each licensed house in’ the area in which the order is made operative. The foremost question that arises in the minds of the many is, Is it worth while all this labour and expense? Do these orders prohibit _to such a degree that, on the whole, they can be looked upon as the solution of the difficult problem of soberising determined drunkards? Notwithstanding the various expressions given, and the backing up of these orders by the authorities, we venture to say that they signally fail in what should be their mission, and that is the reformation of the drunkard.' At least, we take it that that is their avowed object, in the placing out of easy access the prohi-' bited liquor. Yet we find that with a zeal which overrides ordinary discretion orders are issued against all and sundry. Old topers to whom long terms of Imprisonment have no terrors, find that orders are readily granted against them, oftentimes applied for with the object of having a sentence mitigated. So far from any reformation being effected, a number of these listed p**sons. are turned loose to establish a further menace to licensed and to provide further work for the police. In regrettably few instances can it be pointed out that the persons prohibited have qny intention of abstaining from liquor, or that any real good results. Possibly there are a few cases where the bah has. restrained ’ some weak-minded individuals, and led them to see' the error of their ways. It is to be sincerely hoped that such instances are more numerous than the charges of being fqund on licensed premises, and that of- procuring liquor for prcdjibited persons, would lead one to deduct. In the opinion df some hotelkeepers the order acts as a isort of protection to them, insomuch that it enables them to bar many undesirable customers. This may' be, but whether it compensates for the eternal vigilance required, and the} ever present possibility of breaking the law by serving unwittingly a prohibited person is a moot point, the alleged benefit no doubt varying greatly in different localities. A house in a leading' thoroughfare or prominent situation would have much less trpub'e with prohibited persons than those not so fortunately situated. In the “Herald” supplement last week, the Rev. Davies is given an opportunity to air his '• views on the question of prohibition orders. The gist of his views are, of course that the only way to prohibit liquor is to stop its legal sale; that is, the old, old stock-in-trade gag of all prohibitionists. Fortunately, the world’s evidence is 'that prohibition does not prohibit, and that the depriving the : majority of their right iof legal access to alcoholic beverages does not make sober the - weak minority.* Pastor Davis mentioned to the morning paper interviewer that he had lived . in prohibition States in America, and knew what he was talking about. It was passing istrange that on the same day as the above appeared the' “Evening Star’s”. New York correspondent, writing . under ■ the bedding “Drunkenness in Maine,” writes that: “Tfie, operation of the prohibition law in the State of- Maine is a standing commentary for those opposed to the policy. The citv of Bangor, last year, for instance, notwithstanding extraordinary vigilance on the part of local deputies, broke all records for drunkenness, judging from the report of the Chief of Police. The total number of arrests for drunkenness was 1827. The total number the previous year was 1324. Thet total number of arrests during the year, was 2203, from all causes.” Now, no comment on the above figures is needed. They are eloquence itself. For such results we are asked to do as Maine has done, and become a prohibited country. If a feeble joke might be attempted, our figures for the colony under legalised supervision tend to show that we had better re-Maine as we are. The result is not sufficiently encouraging.

Coming back to the prohibition order question, one has to only read the Police Court reports- to conclude that it is greatly overdone, the main trouble being that the prohibited one has no intention of being prohibited, he or she becoming oftentimes an object of solicitude to their friends, who speedily destroy any possible benefit. It must be always remembered that there ever is a vast gulf between the reformer and the objects of his endeavours. Environment, hopes,’ ambitions, education and thought are totally different, otherwise the reformer’s task would be easy indeed. Some, day we may have the establishment of an inebriates’ home in the Antarctic Seas, as on the authority of Mr. Wilson, the junior surgeon on the Discovery during Captain Scott’s Antarctic expedition, the taste for alcoholic drinks dropped suddenly when he and his colleagues entered Ihe ice region, and that the disinclination increased as time went on.