“THE VANGUARD” AGAIN.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIX, Issue 1095, 6 April 1911, Page 20

“THE VANGUARD” AGAIN.

ITS METHODIST EDITORS AS CRITICS OF PROFESSOR SALMOND. THE “SUPERIOR” MIND UPON BIBLICAL TEACHING. “The Vanguard” is at it again. It has been running a sort of “To be Continued in our Next” criticism of Professor’s Salmond’s pamphlet, “Prohibition A Blunder,” and returns to the charge'in its “All Fool’s Day” issue. On the principle of “The better the day, the better the deed,” it fools its readers with some eight or nine columns of allegedly superior criticism of the attitude assumed by Professor Salmond in his review of the Prohibition movement. Its Editors are such very consistent gentlemen themselves that they can possibly afford to sneer at their doughty opponent, despite their own inconsistent attitude on the now celebrated “Compact” and quite a few other things. It is so impossible for the Dogberrys of the Prohibition movement to recognise merit in arguments that tell against themselves that they are prepared to brand as heretics and semi-lunatics all who do not see eye to eye with them. And ■while hotly resenting the “assumption of superior knowledge” on the part of Dr. Salmond, they themselves, with all the arrogance and effrontery born of the parsonic mind, assume a “superior” attitude that must be infinitely diverting to Dr. Salmond if he troubles to read their self-satisfied criticisms. Traversing Dr. Salmond’s statement that “the thought and sentiment in the Prohibition Camp m regard to wine and its use is at variance with that which pervade the Old and New Testaments,” they say: “Well, we frankly admit that, in our opinion, the thought and sentiment in the Prohibition camp in regard to wine and its use is at variance with the practice of the JeWs in Bible times, and the opinion of the Old Testament writers. We have not the slightest doubt in our minds that Abraham and Moses, Aaron and David .... each and -all of them would have refused to accept the presidentship of a Prohibition League.” Following as this does upon the extraordinary assertion that in “Scripture times, alcohol was an unrecognised factor, and ardent spirits an absolutely unknown quantity,” the critical reader will begin to wonder if the reverend Editors who run the “Vanguard” are either as learned or as “superior” minded as they profess to be. Not that they are to be held in contempt, for they have a pretty conceit of their own, and do not mind claiming infallibility for their own opinions, as all selfopinionated persons will. Professor Salmond’s failure to view the Prohibition movement from the “Vanguard’s” standpoint is very lamentable (from the Isitt point of view), but it is very natural after all, because the one is illogical, unscriptural, and scarcely defensible, if the sentimental considerations that prompt it are swept away; while the sturdy common-sense that characterises Dr. Salmond’s attitude leaves no room for doubting that the best of the argument rests with that gentleman. * THE VANGUARD’S SPECIAL PLEADING. The “ Vanguard” Editors accuse Dr. Salmond of giving way to “special pleading.” But what can be said of men w r ho, claiming a special knowledge of Scriptural times, make such ridiculous statements as that last quoted. Is it not a practical confession of ignorance. We have a rooted objection to anything savouring of cant, and, 'but for the fact that the Prohibition Editors of “The Vanguard” have chosen to drag Scripture into the business we should not care to cite it against them. If alcohol was “an unrecognised factor” and “ardent spirits an absolutely unknown

quantity,” as the “Vanguard” says they were in Scriptual times, why did the inspired writer warn the Jews that “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging,” etc. And, if alcohol was not present in the wine that Noah drank, what induced the intoxication that made him the sport of his youngest son? The wines of Palestine were notoriously “heady.” What made them heady but alcohol? If these reverend Editors know their Bible at all, they can scarcely be ignorant of the fact that the wines spoken of in Scripture were not only intoxicating, but that it was on account of their intoxicating character that their use was forbidden to the priests while they were employed in the Tabernacle and in the services at the altar. It is, aga’n, a recognised fact that it was customary at executions to give the condemned persone “wine and strong liquors to stupify them and take off some of the fear and sense of their pains.” There is, indeed, overwhelming evidence to prove the direct opposite of the “Van-

guard’s” contention that the wines of “Scriptural times” were only “lightly alcholised.” The Prohibitionist: js only logical in his illogical determination to admit nothing that tells against his propaganda. He is consistent only in his inconsistency, and truthful only when it suits his purpose to be truthful. He is never above misrepresenting those who fail to see eye to eye with him, and when he runs amok he tries to inflict as much damage as possible to the character and reputation of his opponents. The “Charity that thinketh no evil” is as far removed from his modes of thought and action as the Poles are asunder. He can neither understand nor sympathise with the larger mind and nobler part played by men like Professor Salmond, who, feeling themselves called upon to speak the truth, do so fearless of consequences, because they recognise that the time for plain speaking upon the Prohibition question has arrived. We can hardly imagine that Professor Salmond is likely to feel very greatly perturbed at the advertisement he is

receiving at the hand of “The Vanguard” and its Method'st Editors. Saner or more logical arguments upon the Prohibition cause can hardly be imagined than those placed so clearly, concisely and conclusively before the public by Dr. Salmond. It may suit “ The Vanguard” to speak of “Professor Salmond’s Blunder,” and to thus parody, and minimise the sting of, “Prohibition A Blunder,” but it will have a very difficult task to convince the thinking public that the man it assails has done other than a distinct service to the community in exposing the hollow nature of the average Prohibitionist’s creed, the “Vanguard’s” included.