THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC IN AFRICA.
By R. H. Nassau
BY R. H. NASSAU, M.D., D.D. PROTESTS against traffic in intoxicating liquors among aboriginal populations come from various sources. First, they come from the lips of missionaries in charge of native churches, where a careful estimate claims that the membership would be tenfold the present numbers were it not for the temptation set by the drink habit. If there be such a thing as “moderate drinking” possible to the colder-blooded and stronger-willed Anglo-Saxon, it is not possible to the enervated populations of tropical countries. Second, it is not true of those countries that their own native drinks, and not the foreign liquors, are responsible for their drunkenness, and that they would be equally drunken, even if the foreigner had not introduced his rum. Native palm wine and plantation beer and other drinks are not as intoxicating—do not so sadden the mind, or destroy the physical organs—as the poisonous compounds of the rum trade. In Africa, for instance, the native at first disliked the taste of rum; he did not accept it until it was urged on him. When the Gospel was first carried into the Ogowe River, West Africa, in 1874, the interior tribes were only beginning to learn its use. Third, native chiefs, such as the Christian King Khama, of South Africa, and the Mohammedan chiefs of the Niger Delta, have petitioned almost in vain that the trader be not allowed to bring in his liquor. Fourth, some of the very men who are trading in liquor would be glad to have it abolished. To it, is largely due the loss of white life in countries like Africa, and the only pecuniary gain is its use during the initial stages of the trade or afterward, when it is sold directly over the counters of a shop. Where trade is carried on in what is called the “trust system” there is no gain. This is admitted by most foreign traders. For the liquor is drunk up at once by the natives to whom it was entrusted, before he has made even an effort at seeking native produce in return. At this stage of the trade, many white traders would be pleased to have governments step in with a prohibition that would be enforced on all. Individual agreements not to sell have at times been made, but they are broken by some treacherous signatory to the contract, in the greed of rivalship in trade. Fifth, even where there exists prohibition by the government of some one country, the law is evaded, and smuggling is carried on, over the border of an adjacent country. Were there uniformity and universality in tariff duties of an amount practically prohibitive, the evil could soon be extinguished. There are European trading-firms in Africa, and probably in other countries, who would welcome such legislation.—Missionary Review.