The press TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1918. Proposed National Prohibition Poll.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16259, 9 July 1918, Page 6

The press TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1918. Proposed National Prohibition Poll.

It is, evident, from the preparations being made by the No-License Party, that the Dominion is shortly to bo plunged into a sharp conflict over tho perennial liquor question. We think that it is a matter for regret that a controversy of this kind, which is bourrl to absorb a great deal of tho pi:

attention, and engender a good deni

heat, should be started in tho very srisis of the war, when all our energies ought to be concentrated on its vigorous prosecution. The prohibitionists, of course, will reply that they regard the cessation of the liquor traffic as a very essential factor in the measures necessary to be token to win the war. There would be more in this argument if there were any reasonable ground for believing that the principle of prohibition, if carried, can be brought into affective operation in time to have any material cffect on our war efforts. Wo should certainly have the turmoil and distraction of tho internal strife, but we hope the main crisis of tho war will have passed before it is possiblo to bring national prohibition into effcct in New Zealand, oven if tho poll proposed to bo held should docido in favour of such a step. Still tho prohibitionists are ablo to point to tho fact that they are merely carrying out a recommendation of the National Efficiency Board which is especially charged with tho duty of devising means of economising our resources and strengthening our efforts with a view to the succcssful prosecution of the war. This, wo Irankly admit, is a strong argument in justification of the courso taken by the prohibitionists, although wo still Kb ink that the introduction"* of such a highly controversial subject of diffcrenco at this particular juncture is a mistake.

For the first time in the history of the agitation tha prpliibitionists havo conceded the principle of compensation ito the Trade. They say they do not believe in it, but still they think najtional prohibition will bo cheaply purchased at a cost of £4,500,000, tho amount estimated by the Efficiency * Board. The Hon. Q. W. Russell, in an interview at Auckland, is reported to havo suggested that tho leaders of tho liquor trade and tho executivo of the New Zealand Alliance have come to an agreement on tliis subject. Wo have no' information ourselves as to the acitual facts, but it is not improbable jthat tha brewers and licensed victualI

tors, tired of tho continual attacks to

which they have been subjected, may now prefer to retire with compensation in preference to continuing the battle with tho possibility of being squeezed out in tho end without compensation. If this is so, then, seeing the very large vote in favour of national prohibition which was cast at the last polling it is obvious that if this vote is now to be reinforced by the influence of the Trade, there is considerable probability of national prohibition with compensation being carried.

What we feci bound to point ont is that it is not only tho Trade and the Prohibitionists -who aro interested in this question. There is that not unimportant section of the public which belongs to neither party. The position is very similar to that which arises when a dispute is taken before tho Arbitration Court. It is usually regarded as a matter which concerns only the omployers and the employees. In most cases an incroase of wagos is given to tho men, and instead of this being paid by the employer, it is " passed on" to thfe consumer, "who is not represented bofore the Court, and whose vory existence is apt to be overlooked. There is now, first of all, the important question of tho national revonue to be considered. We do not suppose that it will be seriously proposed to pay the £4,500,000 out of the Consolidated Fund, as Mr Russell seems to hint. The probability is that the compensation will bB paid in Government stock. The provision of intorcst and sinking fund at the very lowest estimate (o por cent.) would mean an extra charge on tho Revenue of £225,000 a yoar. In addition to this we are at present deriying considerable revenue from Customs and excise duties on liquor. For the year 191G tho receipts from these sources amounted to £915,(T00, and we do not think that the receipts were less than this for the financial year 1917-18. In all, therefore, additional taxation amounting to about £1,140,000 will have .to be imposed. The NoLicense advocates will say • that this will soon be made up by lessoned expenditure on gaols and mental hospitals, etc. Even assuming that national prohibition can bo made effective, it will bo many years before the reductions claimed will be actually brought about, and in the meantime revenue must be found. Clearly more Customs dutios must bo raised from articles of general consumption, and as it would bo not only grossly unfair, but impracticable, to place the whole cost of prohibition on the comparatively small number of citizens who aro now paying taxation, tho existing exemptions and abatements on land and income tax -would either have to be swept away, or the iino lowered very considerably. Probably most thoughtful people would say that if by the taking of a 'poll and tho passing of legislation drunkenness and all its attendant misery could be abolished, it would bo worth while to pay tho price. But, human nature boing what it is, can such evil be abolished in this way? In England, where national purchase has been under discussion, it has boen with a view to substituting national control of the liquor trade, not its total abolition. The attompt to .enforce the total suppression of the use of alcoholic liquors as a boverago is a very different matter, and those who belong neither to tho prohibitionist party nor to the trade will require very strong evidcnco and argumonts in favour of such a proposition, before they consent to take such a plunge in tho dark.