Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 27, 20 September 1946, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only and where a nom-de-piume is used the name of the writer must be included for reference purposes. The Editor reserves the right to abridge, amend or withhold any letter or letters. LICENSING REPORT

Sir, —As your correspondent Pro Bono Publico points out, the question of the reformation of the Licensing Trade is vitally connected with “fundamental principles.” But does the drink traffic really need reforming? Is it really a menace? Read two or three statements from authorities. The English economist, Adam Smith, said: “The labour employed in producing strong drink is utterly unproductive, it is wholly unproductive of the things which can justly be called wealth. The labour expended on these adds nothing to the wealth of the community, to the means of substance or the sources of true enjoyment; but on the contrary it produces what is positively injurious to all interests of humanity.” Then Viscount Astor said: “It is impossible to reconcile the interests of the drink traffic with the interests of a nation.” And Sir Arthur S. MacNalty, formerly Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health and Board of Education (British) and editor-in-chief of the Official Medical History of the recent war, states: “For the quality of the race, alcohol is certainly detrimental. It is a taint which biological experiment has shown to be heritable, and it leads to poverty,

overcrowding, parental neglect of the offspring, mental degeneracy and crime. It is one of the most destructive enemies of family life.” That this is correct, even under “enlightened control” is proved by recently published reports from Invercargill. Can such a traffic be reformed?. Some years ago the “Christian Advocate” wrote of the experiment in Canada: “One day the demon has worked his will, taken to the limit his prey from among the children, and left the land impoverished, then Canada will realise the mad folly of Liquor Control and rise up and chase it out.” A recent U.S.A. periodical states: “It is the amount of alcohol consumed that warps men’s judgment causing crime, accident and broken homes, not the method of sale.” This brings us to the vital truth that alcohol remains alcohol, no matter how or by whom it is sold. It is of this same alcohol that our Licensing Commission wrote in its report: “The manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquor by itself was a business which had dangerous possibilities affecting the public welfare.” Even the traffic itself is aware of its nature. Read

this from one of the organs of the drink traffic, “The Brewers’ Gazette: “We deal in a ware, the misuse of which brings sorrow in its train; and modern conditions have made the exigencies and affairs of society so inter-dependent that it is- no longer possible for the individual to work out his own damnation, in whatsoever way he chooses to do it, without society as a whole being subtly affected.” It is, undoubtedly a menace, and the fact of its exist-

ence in our midst is evidence that as a people we are not living up to those “fundamental principles.” What are they, anyhow? Shortly, those principles the acceptance and practice of which place us in a right and true relationship with God and our fellows. What can we do about it? Individually, find those fundamental principles, and live up to them ourselves, and as for this drink traffic, let me quote from that very fine work, “The Ministry of Healing”: “The man who has a vicious beast, and who, knowing its disposition, allows it liberty, is by the laws of the land held accountable for the evil the beast may do. In the laws given to Israel the Lord directed that

when a beast known to be vjcious

caused the death of a human being, the life of the owner should pay the price of his carelessness or malignity. On the same principle the government that licenses the liquorseller, should be held responsible for the result of his traffic. And if it is a crime worthy of death to give liberty to a vicious beast, how much greater is the crime of sanctioning the work of the liquor-seller!” The drink traffic can no more be reformed than can a vicious beast—let us treat it -accordingly! Yours etc., SUMMUM BONUM. TO DEMOCRAT Sir, —‘Democrat’ makes light talk, and, as he would no doubt think very conclusive argument on the need for freedom of the individual.

This idea of freedom and private enterprise is glossed over as something fine and desirable by all, but I am afraid that any penetrating thought at all will skittle the very foundations of ‘Democrat’s’ opinions. The people of Britain certainly had power over those who believed as Democrat does in freedom and/ private enterprise and not forgetting what goes with it—unemployment. And what did the people of Britain do with those like Democrat? They kicked them out, lock,

stock and barrel and “beheaded” 24 ministers of private enterprise and individual freedom. One minister we fire told shed tears on losing his seat —tears of self pity I am afraid. I was brought up in England and suffered under the Government whose policy was as Democrat outlines.

I will give him a little of what my mother and her three children had to put up with. This and infiniately worse was the lot of many millions.

My mother drew the widow’s benefit of 10/- per week. I started work at 5/- per week several weeks ' before. One sister was working for 5/- per week and the other sister was more fortunate at ■' 10/- per week. A grand total of £1 10/- per week. But let us have a look at the deductions first. Rent 9/4 per week, train fares for myself and two sisters .6/- per week. This left as is easy to see, 14/8 on which to feed and cloth four of us. No wonder my mother sent me to the butchers for two penny worth of bones in the " hope that some meat may be found thereon. Bread and dripping was more often seen and eaten than, either margerine or butter. Our eyes would almost pop out when we did see butter on the table on an occasional Sunday.

In later years when working in a shipyard I noticed with disgust, children waiting at the gates asking you “Bread left.” “Bread left.”

Almost two million unemployed asked for a rise in the child benefit of 1/- per week making it 3/per child per week. No! was.the answer of those who believed in freedom and private enterprise even though they had a surplus of many many millions in the unemployment relief fund.

The Government Statistician informs us (I believe it was 1938) that 60 per cent, of the children in Britain were either suffering from malnutrition or undernourishment. And all this and more under freedom of the individual.

Freedom and private enterprise has shown its ugly head in America when price restrictions were lifted. The cost of living (according to reports) rising over 20 per cent, in a few days. Good old freedom and private enterprise. Aye Democrat. You can have it for me with pleasure. Yours etc., J. DITCHFIELD.