THE REV. R. B. S. HAMMOND AND MR. W. E. J. MAGUIRE.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1125, 2 November 1911, Page 20

THE REV. R. B. S. HAMMOND AND MR. W. E. J. MAGUIRE.

THE OTHER SIDE OF PROHIBITION.

. New Zealand is in the unenviable position of being the dumping ground of every sort of social and political fanatic who thinks he or she (according to the sex of the faddist), has a mission to convert his fellows to his ways of thinking. They come and go like the itinerating missioner, appropriating as much as possible “for the benefit of the cause” (represented by themselves of course) and benefiting not a little personally. One of several such individuals, who have 'been engaged by the New Zealand Alliance to preach temperance to a people that are (the misrepresentations of No-License advocates notwithstanding), noteworthy for their Temperance, is the Rev. R. B. S. Hammond, who comes to us from Australia. The reverend gentleman could have found plenty of scope for his energies in his own country, and more particularly in the great cities of the Commonwealth. It is true the work there is’ 1 less remunerative, and that the No-License cause does not arouse so much enthusiasm in Australia as it does here. But that is a mere incident. The fact is Mr Hammond is here on a lecturing tour, primed with some facts, and (judging by the Guy’s Hospital incident) not a

few fictions, which he dispenses at his meeting with all the vigour of a firsi-class “scold.” The liquor trade is anathema to him, and those who are associated with it in any shape oi* form are charged with “luring .men and women to destruction,” and so on, the alleged villainies of “the saloon-keeper” providing him with plen+y of material for urging his audiences to “Strike out the Top Line,” and. not to forget “the collection” —an injunction upon whi£h the Restriction party always , lays’ great emphasis. ♦ * » It was Mi’ Hammond’s good or bad fortune to be followed by a gentlehan, also hailing from the Commonwealth, Who is taking a holiday in the Dominion. Mr W. E. J. Maguire, the gentleman in question, is wellknown in Labour circles in the ■Mother State, and also in Western Australia and Victoria. Happening to be in Auckland when Mr Hamr mond was speaking, he went to hear the “No-License” champion, and was not only surprised, but actually amused at the “piffle” with which the “great gun” was regaling his hearers. The statements made were, in some instances, so wide of the mark, and so completely misrepresented the position, that Mr Maguire offered to debate the questions with Mr Hammond. In a straightforward and manly fashion, he announced by advertisement his willingness to discuss the issues. His challenge, for such it was, drew from the No-License) people who are behind Mr Hammond ; a very curious reply. Mr Maguire was asked to state whether he was an accredited representative of the Licensed Victuallers Association, or of any body associated with the liquor traffic. If so, on production of his “credentials,” the endeavour would be m'ade to comply with his wishes, and to arrange for him to meet Mr Hammond on the public platform. It so happened that Mr Maguire is simply Mr Maguire —nothing more and nothing less-—a decent, fair-minded, lawabiding citizen, with very decided views in favour of fair play, and a desire to see such momentous issues; as those raised by the Prohibitionists, properly treated by those who profess to deal with them. He had not even an axe to grind nor a single iron in the fire. Probably the No-License people were aware of the fact, and much ‘as they profess to love “The Truth” (with extra big “T’s,” please Mr Compositor) they saw no points in confronting their man with a gentleman of independent opinions and unbiased judgment. Had Mr Maguire been a member of the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, or even 'a brewer or a wine and spirit merchant —well the case would have been different. There would have been some glory in discrediting an “interested” party, or a paid ‘advocate of vested interests. There was nothing to be gained from a debate with a gentleman of purely independent opinions. Hence Mr Maguire’s challenge was practically allowed to go bv default. « ? £ Having once issued his challenge, Mr McGuire was determined to seethe thing through, and since his challenge was practically ignored he decided to state “the other side of Prohibition” from the public platform, 'and took the Auckland Opera House for that purpose, addressing a public meeting in that building on Sunday afternoon last. A section of thfe audience exhibited a very uneasy feeling in regard to the effect Mr Maguire’s address might have upon the audience, and interrupted the proceedings very freely with their interjections and denials of the speaker’s statements. Mr M'aguire, who is a very vigorous speaker, was in no way disconcerted by these little amenities, created a decidedly favorable impression. He argued that the principle of prohibition, was an' infringement of the liberty of the peo-. pie, and in support of his contention quoted Oliver Cromwell’s saying, “It would be unwise to deprive a man of his lawful liberty upon the supposition that he might abuse. it.” The

principles of prohibition, he said, tended to the lowering of wages, the destruction of the natural social instincts, and it was found that the greatest opponents of progress and of liberty of the people were: men such as Mr Hammond. ‘lf-prohi-bition were generally adopted, and the open ‘bar done away with, it would produce the home-drinker, who was often the worst of all drinkers. Per-

sonally, he believed in, and advocated ; moderation and tejnperance in all i things—food as ..well as drink. Figures quoted with the object of ■ showihg that\ in' New Zealand prohii bition "was" least liked where it had been . longest tried, and amid cheers and daughter Mr Maguire declared that in five years’ time people would never hear a word Qf local option, let alone prohibition.