Notes and Comments.

White Ribbon, Volume 1, Issue 8, 1 February 1896, Page 4

Notes and Comments.

NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENTS. W. S. B Thanks for contribution. Obliged to hold over till next issue. Mrs Shf.ppard. —As our readers are doubtless aware, the Editor-in-chief is once more in our midst, after a pleasant passage in the Gothic. Unfortunately her state of health is iar from satisfactory, and almost absolute rest and quiet have been enjoined. Dunedin Convention. —We are requested to state that the date of meeting has not yet been definitely fixed. It is proposed to hold it simultaneously with the Prohibition League Convention, so that through the joint elforts the public meetings may be made notable affairs. The Canterbury Women’s Institute, we understand, are endeavouring to arrange for a convention of workers representing the various women’s organisations of New Zealand. Chr’stcburch is, of course, to be the rendezvous, and it is thought that about the end of March may prove a convenient time. The need for such a convention is only too apparent. Union is strength, but before we can unitedly ask for legislative reform, we must know

tile ground whereon we stand. Such dissension in the camp as was evidenced by the resolution of the Auckland Women’s Liberal Association anent the C. D Acts will always prove a bar to progress. \Y r e, as women, need educating and enlightening as to the work to be done, and the best methods of performing that work. The C.D. Act. —The decision of the Medical Congress to refer the question of the desirability of introducing or enforcing the C.D. Acts in these colonies to the next Congress for discussion cannot but be regarded as satisfactory from an abolitionist point of view. The evidence in favour of the Acts was evidently far from convincing. It is also exceedingly gratifying to note that the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Wesleyan Church Courts in N.X. have each pronounced against the degrading laws. This being so, we have little fear that any attempt to enforce them would for one moment be tolerated. The Medical Congress on the Use of Alcohol. —Space limit fotbids more than a mere reference to the conclusion drawn from the above discussion by the Lyttelton Limes in its issue of Feb. 12. That paper says that only one out of the 98 physicians took a view at all favourable to prohibition. W e note that only 8 of the 9S are reporte ’ as talcing part in the discussion; of these, Dr. Chappie is, of course, the staunch opponent of alcohol. Dr. Stenhouse said, “ The subject of alcoholism was not one that he had given very much attention to ’ (His opinion is therefore valuable!) Dr Mason's last word is : “Speaking from the physiological point of view, he thought there was no question that the teetotallers had the best end of the stick.” Dr. Mickle thought healthy people did not require alcohol. (We are not aware that even prohibitionists propose to forbid alcohol a place on the druggists’ shelves.) Dr. Symes thought that the use of such beer as was used in olden days (not “ that supplied in the public-house of to-day,”j would be better for the public health than the immoderate use of tea. Dr. Ogston would have strict moderation, and pointed cut that in France, through the phylloxera ravages, wine was dear ; Frenchmen had therefore taken to alcohol in some form or other ; and, of course, drunkenness is on the increase. Dr Springthorpe thought that when people were unhappy, by the use of one of these “ stimulo-sedatives the individual got into paradise ; it was a fool’s paradise, of course.’ “ He judged it better net to drink till after thirty.” Does not the Lyttelton Times article need revision ? Just before we go to pi ess, news comes of the defeat of Mr T. E. Taylor, the prohibitionist can-|

didate in the Christchurch bye-election. Though disappointed, we are not disheartened, for “ Right the day must win.”