THE LESSON OF OHIO.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14835, 28 November 1913, Page 4

THE LESSON OF OHIO.

10 THB EDITOR OF "THS FH**"*** Sir,—You published a cablegram from INew lork on November 2*-' nd which stated that tho Stato Legislature of Ohio had passed a liquor licensing law which was to confine tho issue of licenses to ono to cverv 500 of the inhabitants of that Stato. In some quarters this is regarded as a drastic liquor law, and somo persons aro taking comfort from the announcement in the cablo that this would moan the closing of 3300 saloons iv Ohio. But ****"hat are the facts concerning this State? It was grunted a Constitution iv 1851. and accepted into tho Union. In respect to liquor the Stato Constitution provides that "No license in the traffic of intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in this State." In ISS2, and again in 18S3, attempts wero mado to override the Constitution for the purpose of having power to suppress sly groggeries that abounded everywhere, and endeavour by a system of licensing to "regulate the trading iii alcoholic liquors." Theso attempts wero successful, and licensing legislation was passed, but because of tiie stipulation in the Constitution already quoted was inoperative. In 1886 an Act was passed to "'tax" those who sold liquor and to oeaso their persecution and prosecution so long as they paid 250 dollars* (say £50) per annum to tho Stato funds for the "privilege." Anyone then who had a mind to start in the liquor business could do so without a license, but had to pay the "tax."' No license could bo granted. Thus, as the years rolled on the public saw how no-license or prohibition without the moral support of the community was an utter failure, and moderates, true temperance advocates, but not prohibitionists, were convinced that some form of control would bo preferable in the public interest to a tree system, unlimited, uncontrolled, and unlicensed, The new legislation to grant licenses—one to 500 of the people —is tho result. Ohio has practically abandoned no-license; but local option still maintains under the municipal corporation law, and some 300,000 out of a population of over four millions aro, according to tho Superintendent of the Prohibition League, still under the constitutional prohibitory law. The experience of Ohio should bo a warning to New Zoaland. After sixty years of no-license and all its abominations under cover of hypocrisy and fanaticism, Ohio has returned to a liberal system of licensing. Sane prohibitionists themselves have for years been convinced that "No-libenso in Ohio has been a rank failure, and so it has been thj-own overboard, So to speak. Compared with New Zealand's rjistem of licensing that of Ohio is particularly liberal. It is one license to every 500 of the population. To show how "drastic" that is compared with "free" trading in liquor under "Nolicense" in Ohio, tho cable writer says this form of licensing will close 3300 saloons. But if we were to apply Ohio's system to New Zealand it would mean the granting of new licenses to nearly 1000 more hotels. To give a concrete case: Wellington, with a population of, say, 80,000, has now 47 licensed hotels, but in Ohio a similarly sized town would have 160: and the samo observation holds good with respect to the other centres of population in this Dominion. The j?reat lesson we have to learn from Ohio is this, that after sixty years of "No-license" and its variants, all have been abandoned, for a liberal system of licensing—one license to every 500 of tho people. Will No-licenso advocates in _ this country learn wisdom from Ohio, and desist from endeavouring to impose upon New Zealand a method that leads to worse evils and creates untold iniquities ?— Yours, etc., TEMPERANCE.