PROHIBITION.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume 23, Issue 47, 23 November 1899, Page 3

PROHIBITION.

INTERESTING PRONOUNCEMENT BY FATHER REGNAULT, S.M. Decidedly the best and ablest nut-shell pronouncement we have recently seen upon the tangled question of Prohibition, is the following letter written by Father Regnault, S.M., of Waimate (South Canterbury). The occasion which led to the inditing of it is sufficiently explained in the opening paragraph. Through the courtesy r>f a loc,»l correspondent we are favoured with the full text of Father llegnault's communication, and have procured the permission both of the writer and the recipients for its publication in our columns. The letter runs as fellows :—: — The Presbytery, Waimate, October 17, 1899. G. II GIIAHAM ESQ , Dear Sir, — In reply to your communication of the 12th inst. informing me that Mr. Thomas Brown and yourself had been appointed by the Waimate Temperance Reform Union to wait on me for the purpose of asking me to help in the Prohibition movement at the next triennial poll of New Zealanders on the question of License iv the traffic of intoxicants, I beg to say that, although I should be very glad to see you at any time, I think that an interview on the above subject would be very little use. But, since you have done me the honour to write to me, I owe it to you and to the community, to state as briefly as may be, my reasons for declining to aid you in the Prohibition campaign. Hence, I object firstly to the principle of Prohibition, and secondly, to the methods employed by many leading Prohibitionists. A.s to THE PRINCIPLE 1. I cannot adhere to the principle of Prohibition. In the controversies on the above Biibject, I notice that strong drink is frequently stated to be an evil in itself, a creation of the devil, etc. This is the Gnostic doctrine, to which I oannot adhere. Wine, indeed, like all creatures, is a gift of God, for there is but one Creator of all things — the one eternal God. ' And God saw all the things that He had made and they were very good. 1 (Gen. 1., c. 1.) St. John Chrysostom, the great light of the Christian Church at the end of the fourth century, speaks to the point ■when he says : ' I hear men say when these excesses happen : " Would there were no wine." 0 folly 1 When men sin in other ways, dost thou find fault with the gifta of God 1 But what madness is this ? Did the wine produce this evil 1 Not the wine, but the intemperance of such as take an evil delight in it. Say then : " Would there were no drunkenness, no luxury " ; but if thou sayest : •' Would there were no wine." thou wilt by degrees go on to say : " Would there were no steel, because pf the murderers ; no night, because of the thieves." In a word thou wilt destroy all things, since they may all be abused.' 2. Neither can I, in the facs of the most recent scientific investigations into the subjeot, hold that alcohol is, in moderate doses, A POISON. This idea was based chiefly on certain unsatisfactory experiments made a number of years ago by Lallemin, Duroy, Perrin, and others. Their finding on this point has bean completely upset by the recent series of experiments made under the most stringent scientific conditions by Professor Atwater, of the Wesleyan University (United States), under the auspices of the Committee of Fifty for the investigation of the drink problem. This distinguished scientist has conclusively shown that, in its proper place and measure, alcohol exercises important functions of nutrition. 3. I cannot, on moral grounds, condemn as absolutely wronar and sinful the strictly moderate and well regulated use of alcoholic drinks by the proper persons. Did Ido so. 1 should set myself up against the Saviour of the world and His apostles, all of whom took wine in moderation, and none of whom were in this sense Prohibitionist?. Neither, by the way, were any of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, and least of all the most notable of their number, Dr. Martin Luther. I would then — and do — insist in every case on moderation as a bounden duty, for excess in drink, »a well as in epcech, is against al 1 laws, human and divine. I would — and do — recommend TOTAL ABSTINENCE as a matter of counsel (not of prcept), yet I would — and do — insist upon it as a moral obligation, binding in conscience on some — inebriates, for instance, and certain classes of persons who have either lost or not acquired the habit of self-°ontroi in the matter of strong drink. These are not, however, typical members of the community in New Zealand. Hence I should not feel justified, for their sake, to make total abstinence compulsory on all. 4. I deplore the evils of drunkenness as much as anyone. I deplore and reprobate, and that, too, in a practical way, and I believe not altogether without success, not the well-regulated use, but the abuse of alcoholic drinks — whether that abuse arises from the sole culpability of the consumer, or whether it is contributed to ever so remotely by the 'trade.' I am ready apd willing to give my cordial support to any movement which will provide a real remedy for the undoubted evils that cluster around the traffic ii intoxicating drinks. My personal opinion, however, is that a suitable remedy may be found, not in total prohibition, but in its better regulation, and a better administration of the existing laws. Above all, a system of education which would impart to the young people of New Zealand a better knowledge of God's holy law, and teach them the means of grace which our Blessed Savionr has placed at our disposal, and would prove a very efficacious remedy against the evils of drink. The more direct reasons which incline me to think Prohibition AN UNSUITABLE REMEDY are : (a) That it in an extreme and radical measure which interferes intimately with individual liberty and vested rights. On this

account it should not be lightly adopted, unless ib could be clearly shown, either by a priori reasoning, or better still, from the lessons of actual experience, that the benefits which the community would derive from it would more than outweigh its disadvantages. (V) Now the practical question arises : Are the the benefits likely to accrue from Prohibition clearly greater than its disadvantages? Our Prohibitionists fall back here exclusively on the lessonß of experience. The Clutha district in New Zealand, Mildura in Victoria, and Kentucky, Massaohussets, Maine, etc., in America are set before us as evidences of the advantages of Prohibition. But it so happens that these very same places are also brought forward as melancholy examples of the more or less disastrous failure of Prohibition by large bodies of people of various creeds and classes, who are at least as independent, reasonable, and competent eye-witnesses as the advocates of Prohibition. They assert quite as positively as Prohibitionists deny that this expedient is no real remedy for the drink evil, that it positively aggravates it, and that it introduces in its train worse evils than those it is intended to remove. It is not for me to decide which set of witnesses iB right, or whether either is wholly right or wholly wrong. But I may here state that my personal opinion is that the weight of evidence, taken all in all, appears to me to be against Prohibition. I may be wrong. Yet, under such circumstances, I, for one, am not prepared to advocate a measure that interferes so closely with personal liberty, and yet is, at best, of extremely doubtful benefit. Even if it were conclusively shown — which it is not — that Prohibition is a real remedy for the evils attendant on the drink traffic, I should only deem it just to accompany its adoption with a fair measure of compensation— as in Victoria — to those whose livelihood would be unfavourably affected, or whose property would be suddenly depreciated in value by a chance majority of the vot.sin their districts. Secondly, as to the METHODS OF LEADING PROHIBITIONISTS. So far as I can gather, the Prohibition movement in this Colony, is partly political, partly religious. The political leaders of the party, so far &s I am aware, have not succeeded in gaining the confidence of their fellow-colonists. As regards the clergy : it pains me much to state that many of those who are intimately associated with the movement throughout New Zealand are notable for the violence and frequency of their attacks, either in the Press or in the pulpit, or in both — and even at recent dates — on all that we Catholics hold dear and sacred. This remark, I am glad to say, does not apply to Waimate. If I were convinced of the benefits of Prohibition — which I am not — such proceedings would not alienate my support and sympathy from the movement, even though it would make it difficult for me to meet on the same platform, or work cordially on the same committee with, those who make it a practice to revile the faith that is dearer to me than life. But I cannot get away from the conviction that certain writings, speeches, and political actions of those that are prominent in the Prohibition movement have done much to cause it to be viewed with suspicion, if not with downright aversion, by many who might otherwise have given it their sympathy and support, just as they would to any other political expedient on which people of any creed, of al creedß, or of no creed, might, in a friendly way, agree to differ. In conclusion, allow me to quote the following words of Cardinal Manning. They are to the point. In his address to the Holy Family Coufraternity of Commercial Road, 1875, he said : ' I will go to my grave without tasting intoxicating liquors ; but I repeat distinctly that any man who should say that the use of wine or any o'her like thing is sinful, when it does not lead to drunkenness, that man is a heretic condemned by the Catholic Church. With that man I will never work.' Now, I desire to promote total abstinence in every way that I can ; I will encourage all societies of total abstainers But the moment I ccc men not charitable, attempting to trample down those who do not belong to the total abstainers, from that moment I will not work with those men. — I am, my dear Mr. Graham, Yours sincerely, P Regnault, SM.