The Press Thursday, November 10, 1927. Licensing Issues.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19154, 10 November 1927, Page 10

The Press Thursday, November 10, 1927. Licensing Issues.

The Licensing Bill introduced by the Prime Minister proposes several useful amendments of the law, two of which are of great importance: the extension of the interval between polls and the obligation upon the Prohibitionist party to find 55 per cent, of the people on their side before they can have Prohibition. But the fatal blot upon the Bill is the clause which denies to the electors the right they now possess to declare against Prohibition and against the continuance of the existing method of supplying fermented drink to the people. The Prohibitionists have already begun to play their old and oft-exposed trick of complaining that the "third issue" is a "handi- " cap" upon the Prohibition vote. This complaint has been so thoroughly discussed in our own columns and elsewhere, and has been so clearly shown to be baseless, that there is no alternative to the conclusion that in bringing it forward again the " drys " are wilfully attempting to mislead the public. How can the retention of the third issue be made out a " handicap " upon the Prohibition vote? Only by proof that the votes for State Control are Prohibitionist votes diverted from the grand army of the genuine " drys." But even the effrontery of the most ardent Prohibitionist—and readers of The Press know the lengths to which the Prohibitionist zealot will go—has not been quite equal to making that claim. For it is self-evident that every Prohibitionist who wishes to vote Prohibition can do so, and does so, and that everyone who votes for State Control deliberately votes against Prohibition. A vote for State Control is as definitely a vote against Prohibition as is a vote for Continuance, for if anyone wished to vote for Prohibition he would do so. It is difficult to believe, in the face of that obvious fact, that the complaint that the third issue is an unfair handicap arises out of muddle-headedness. Indeed, we are sure that it does not; it arises out of the belief of the Prohibitionist agitators that it is right to deceive any simple-minded elector in the holy cause of Prohibition. If the third issue is eliminated the disfranchised supporters of some reformed system of supplying the public's requirements mil, so the Prohibitionists hope, vote against Continuance. • We think it most unlikely that more than a very few of them would do so. They dislike Prohibition, and will not have it, as their votes indicate. They dislike the present system also, but they would vote Continuance because that would at' any rate preserve the possibility of the reform they desire, which the carrying of Prohibition would destroy. A twoissue poll, in which a bare majority would be decisive, would result in a defeat for Prohibition. But something more than a bare majority should be required, because there is this vital difference between the two sides: that the supporters of Continuance do not propose to coerce anybody, while coercion is the very essence of Prohibition. And the third issue should be retained, not because it helps (if it does help, which may be doubted) to preserve this country from the tyranny of the Prohibitionists, but because there should be a statutory recognition of the right of a growing section of the people to ask for and work for a reorganisation of tfye method of selling and distributing drink. That is the ground upon which The Press supports the three-issue ballot paper and opposes the conjoined coercion and disfranchisement that the Prohibitionists propose.