THE LICENSING QUESTION.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19164, 22 November 1927, Page 12

THE LICENSING QUESTION.

TO TltE EDITOE OF TUB PRBSS. Hir,—ln a footnote which you add to my letter •in your issue of November IStli, you say: "We really do uot know why Mr Tapley gave his pledges." Most people know that Mr Tapley gave his pledges for the plainest of all possible reasons: he wished to become a member of Parliament. In view of his recent utterances one might imagine that Mr Tapley has no intention of seeking re-election, but should he retire from politics, voluntarily or otherwise, you and he may rest quietly in the knowledge that Dunedin North will still be represented by a man who counts it no disgrace to pledge himself to help forward reforms even though these reforms form no part of the platform of either of the contending political Parties and have not received the blessing of the Editor of The Pkess. You now suggest that the people should deeide (1) whether there should be a three-issue ballot-paper, and (2) whether the .carrying of Prohibition should not require a majority of at least 60 per cent. You fail to explain whether a bare majority should, decide these two questions. You think our fathers in Parliament should not trust the childlike electors with such a dangerous weapon as a bare-majority gun, but you are willing to allow these same, electors to decide whether they will reach it down from the shelf themselves. This is Don Quixoto with a vengeance.—Yours, etc., P. 0. SHACKLOCK. [We did not suggest that the people should decide the two questions mentioned by our correspondent. What we did suggest was that if they doubted the fact that a majority of the electors were against the decisions of the majority of the House, the Prohibitionists could settle this point by agreeing to a vote of the people.—Ed., The Press.]