The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-06-18
REGARDING THE PROHIBITION
VIEWS OF BISHOP RESTARICK
CONFUSED THE ISSUE.

Editor Advertiser:-The outspoken
letter of Bishop Restarick, published in
your paper this morning, is interesting
reading. The bishop has, however, con
fused the issue. In order to get from
under the charge of being con the
side of the liquor interests he argues
against prohibition in general and
against the platform Of the Prohibition
league i'll particular
Now, that platform is simply the
expressed opinion of a hundred or SO
citizens; it is in no sense the issue
upon which we are to vote on July
26. Whether that platform is a wise
one or not is entirely beside the ques-
ton Let US not be confused
On July 26, we vote simply and solely
for or against the sale and manufacture
of liquor in the Territory. The par
ticular law which will make prohibi-
ton operative has not yet been formu-
lated and we are not called upon to
discuss that at all just now. The cleo
ton in July is simply to determine the
| general policy with which we shall
treat the liquor question. So the man
who votes against the prohibition of
the sale and manufacture of liquor in
| that election is most certainly con the
! side of the liquor interests
The bishop also gives considerable
/ space to the treatment of individual lib
erty. 1t is question of many phases.
According to the bishops argument,
one could plead individual liberty gave
him the right to run an automobile at
| thirty miles an hour on Beretania ave-
nue.. He could choose a time when the
road was perfectly clear and there
any one else; but he would be arrested
| as law breaker and would have to
pay to organized society a fine for his
lawlessness.
Society has the right and exercises
it to curtail the so-caled individual lib
erty of citizens in multitude of ways.
It is said that there are a number
! of orientals and some Anglo-Saxons in
Honolulu who like to use opium, a
matter of individual liberty as much
as using liquor. But the law forbids
| them. It is a crime for them to have
it in their possession. A tyrannous
democracy has deprived them of their
rights.
The fact that users of liquor may be
one hundred to one user of opium is
no argument when both are Individually
destroyers of manhood and dangers to
society.
The writer holds no brief for Mr.
Woolley, he is fully able to speak for
himself; but as the bishop has ques
toned a statement of fact which Mr.
Woolley is said to have made, it may
be in point to bring out the facts. -
"Practically all the churches in Ha
wall are for Prohibition is the state
: ment in question. The bishop denie!
the fact and brings in answer not tht
number of churches but the number
of members, to whom no reference wa!
made. The total number of churches il
Hawaii, emitting the Buddhists which
are in no sense Christian, is 332. AnC
leaving out the Episcopal churches
which the bishop disclaims he represent
in this matter, we have only 312. O.
this number 1O5 are Roman Catholic
and against prohibition, leaving 90
Methodists Congregationalists, Nor
mons. and several other bodies range
on the prohibition side. So Mr.. Wool
lev was much nearer the truth than tn
bishop thinks.
The writer agrees with the bisho
that something radical will have to b
done to enforce a prohibition law, o
in fact. to enforce even the present lay
properly. But, if we have a prohibi
ton law. it will be something eminent
IL worth while to enforce.
JOHN P. ERDMAN.
Honolulu June Il, 1910.