ADDRESS ON TEMPERANCE.

Globe, Volume III, Issue 222, 24 February 1875, Page 3

ADDRESS ON TEMPERANCE.

The Hon. S. D. Hastings delivered an address on Temperance at the Oddfellows' Hall last evening, to a somewhat limited audience. The chair was talsea by Mr S. P. Andrews, who briefly iutroduced the speaker. Mr Hastings said it was hardly necessary for him to tell them that he came before them that evening somewhat embarrassed, as he might naturally conclude from the number of the audience that the people of Christchurch had no desire to hear him on the subject of temperance. It was an unfortunate position for him to have a certain reputation which he might not be able to sustain. Some people thought that, coming from America —where the people were generally credited with a weakness for talking —he was an orator. He had no such reputation at home. The man who had established a name for himself all over America—he meant General Grant—had never addressed a meeting for five minutes together in his life. He (Mr Hastings) had determined since he came into the hall, to lay aside his manuscript and have a plain talk with them. The evil of intoxication in their midst was a most serious question, and he and those who thought with him were determined to war against it. Those persons who were interested in this traffic contended that they had no right to do so, but he claimed that they had this right. The sale of intoxicating drink was a curse in every land, and a warfare had been commenced against those people, with the determination to carry it out to the very end, The speaker quoted some expressions from a senator in Massachusetts on the evils resulting from the sale of intoxicating drinks, who had said that the man does not live who could tell the whole story of its woes, nor could the mind take in the countless miseries —hopes destroyed, affections crushed, &c—----from its effects. The picture drawn by that senator fell far short of the actual evils resulting from the use of intoxicating drinks. The liquor traffic in the United States costs twelve* million dollars annually, and the figures were nearly similar regarding Great Britain. He did not know the cost in New Zealand, but he had scarcely taken up a paper siDce his arrival but contained evidence of the evil effects of liquor traffic. He had had the pleasure of spending some hours that day with his Honor the Superintendent, and among other public places they visited the hospital, and there he saw in a great many cases the sad results of drink. They next visited the Lunatic Asylum, and in many instances it pained him to hear that the majority of the unfortunates had cause to thank drink for their sad position. In returning they passed the gaol at Addington, and here again he learnt that drink in most instances led to the unfortunates being sent there. Drink was the cause of the greater portion of the crime in their midst, and in its suppression they were all deeply interested. Mr Hastings read a passage from Victor Hugo, illustrating the evil of intemperance by the simile of a man walking in the quicksands on the west coast of Scotland, each step taken only causing him to sink further, until he became hopelessly embedded. A similar quicksand existed in every community where the liquor traffic was to be found, and that was the cause of all the evils he had mentioned, as, where it did not exist, there were none of these evils. In the State of Maine, in Massachusetts and Vermont, where there was no liquor traffic, there was comparatively little crime and pauperism. In a town in the State of New Jersey, where the founder had stipulated that no liquor was to be sold for ten years, though there was a large population, the expense for police was from fifty to seventy-five dollars annually, and from 350 to 400 dollars for pauper expenses, and in no place of its size was there to be found less misery and greater happiness, and in many other places where there was no liquor traffic the results were equally satisfactory. In 1867 the Maine Liquor Law was enforced throughout the entire town of Boston, and during that year and the next, the annual value of property increased from 80 millions dollars to 87 millions, and during the two years that the law was in force in Massachusetts the annual increase in value of property was 18 per cent, and it was only the enforcing of this law which had produced that result. [Applause.] It was proved that during one of those years 377 men in an agricultural machine manufactory produced a greater value of work than 400 men had previously done. If facts like these were conclusive evidence of the good effected by prohibitory legislation in the use of intoxicating drinks, then he claimed they had a right to interfere with the sale of those liquors. Where did the publican get the right to carry on the sale of his drink ? Not from the Creator, as God would never grant any man a right to carry on a traffic to the injury of his fellow man. [Applause.] It was man's duty and right to look after his children and fellow man. They did not get this right from the common law, and the only right by which they sold drink was by their license. The license question was a serious matter, and he wished to bring it home to them. When a publican was accused of having produced the innumerable evils they saw daily around them, he would reply that his business could not be so bad as they represented, as he had a license, and he (the speaker) would tell them that this license was the will of the people, expressed in the due form of law through their representatives, and the people were responsible for those laws, and personally, he did not think the liquor seller was very much worse than the man who gave him the license. It was tha duty of every community to repeal all laws for the sale of intoxicating drinks. [applause"). —License laws had never answered the ends for which they had been made, and they should thus be repealed. They had had a contrary effect from their first intention ; and one reason why they should be repealed was that the Legislative power went beyond the legitimate authority, as no man had any right to make laws which would authorise any one to carry on a trade so destructive to the welfare of the whole community. He might be told by some that they didn't wish to meddle with the law, but endeavor to induce people to Temperance, and all the good results would follow. That was wrong. The Washingtonian movement, which many of them had, no doubt, heard of, priginated with six drunkards taking the

pledge, and the excitement that was got up afterwards resulted in 150,000 drunkards being reformed. This lasted for four years, but at the end of that time the majority of them relapsed into their bad habits through the evil influences from which they had been drawn being allowed to exist. The Father Mathew movement in Ireland had a similar termination from the same reason, A Good Templar in England who had induced many to turn from drink, had told him that he never felt a man was safe until he had passed from beyond the temptations of this world, and thus did he desire to impress upon their minds the necessity of removing these from their midst. If they had disease in their midst arising from stagnant pools, they would not be considered sane if Ihey did not remove them, and it was useless for them to mourn the evil of intoxication while they allowed the liquor saloons to remain. Some argued that the evil had always existed, and that it was only their duty to palliate it while bequeathing it to their children. This was not the correct view to take. In his country they were aiming at its entire prohibition, and they believed they would be successful, and that they would not be compelled to leave this curse as a legacy. It might be said that the people were not ready for it, and if it was on the statute book they would not be able to enforce it, but it was their duty to educate the people to this necessity, and if they went the right way to work, could easily convince them of this. [Applause.] Those directly connected with the liquor traffic were comparatively few when compared with the whole community, and when placed fairly before them they would have every well-thinking Christian man and philanthropist on their side, and besides the influence of the women, and that was no trifling influence. They would also have the drinking men with them by and by. [Applause.] When they were told that prohibitory legislation had proved a failure in the United States, they were told that which was positively untrue, and he was prepared to stand by what he said. [Applause.] That it had been unsuccessful in some localities was a fact, but as a whole that legislation throughout the Uoited States had been a grand success [applausej, and it was their intention not to stop until they had rooted the evil of drink out altogether. [Applause.] He knew of no country on the face of the globe with a more beautiful climate, charming scenery, and immense resources than New Zealand possessed, and he knew no reason why they should not be a prosperous people. Only remove the liquor traffic, and they could not help being prosperous, and would leave to their children one of the grandest countries that could possibly be left to any people. [Loud applause.] Mr Hardinge, from Napier, spoke against the evils of the liquor trade, and his experience of the Maine law that existed for some years in two towns in the North Island. He also protested against the Assembly voting £BO,OOO to the owners of distilleries for an imaginary loss. On the motion of Mr Caygill, seconded by Mr H. Bennetts, a hearty vote of thanks was awarded to Mr Hastings for his interesting address. A vote of thanks was also passed to Mr Hardinge. The chairman said that Mr Hastings was leaving by the early train in the morning for the South, but might possibly again visit Christchurch on his way back. A vote of thanks to the chairman terminated the proceedings.