The Press Wednesday, November 23, 1927. The Bare Majority.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19165, 23 November 1927, Page 8

The Press Wednesday, November 23, 1927. The Bare Majority.

In the course of an address to the Presbyterian Assembly the President of the New Zealand Alliance, Mr C. Todd, complained that the Licensing Bill brought in by the Prime Minister was "loaded heavier than ever" against the Prohibitionists. This statement implies that under the existing law the scales are already heavily loaded against them. Since the existing law provides (very unwisely) that a bare majority of the votes cast will suffice to carry Prohibition, one would be excused for assuming that Mr Todd thinks it is unfair that a minority composed of Prohibitionist voters cannot coerce the majority. But the absurdity of' his statement is less than the absurdity of his main argument in favour of the bare majority. Surely, he said, the votes of the members of the Presbyterian Assembly were equal to the votes of the loafers around the bar. What he meant, of course, was that the vote of a clerical supporter of Prohibition is of greater weight than the vote of a man who goes into a hotel for a drink. As a matter of fact it is not greater nor worth more, nor would anyone claim it was who was not prepared to deny that every citizen's vote is of the same weight and value wherever there is universal suffrage. It has perhaps not occurred to Mr Todd or his friends that it is much easier to make out a case for the inferiority of the Prohibitionist's vote than for its superiority. What they do not realise is that the antiProhibitionist does not desire or attempt to coerce anyone or to place any restrictions upon the liberty of the individual, while the whole intent of the Prohibitionist is to coerce and restrict other people. If 90 per cent of the electors voted against Prohibition, the remaining 10 per cent, would be as free as they ever were to lead their lives in their own lawful way, but if the Prohibitionists obtain a majority of one single vote that single vote will coerce half the population. If defeat at the polls were to mean for the Prohibitionists that they would be obliged to drink alcoholic flquor they could fairly claim that the decision should be by a bare majority, for in that case they would be in a position exactly corresponding to the position of their opponents. Since they are not thus threatened with the loss of their liberty of choice and action, they cannot reasonably ask for such conditions as would be proper if they were. If two men, A and B, were disputing, and A's desire was that both he and B should be free to do as they pleased, while B's desire was that A should surrender his freedom, it would be manifestly unfair that the conflict should be settled by the toss of a coin, yet that, in effect, is what the Prohibitionists propose in insisting on the bare majority. For this, amongst other reasons, the submission of the Prohibition issue to a bare majority vote is grievously unjust. Attention should be given to Mr Todd's suggestion —for this suggestion is clearly contained in his statement —that Prohibitionists are the religious, high-minded, and intellectual people, and the opponents of Prohibition are in the class of the bar-loafer. *This suggestion has been made often enough before by Prohibitionist zealots, and we know of no reason for supposing that they are not sincere in holding that amazing opinion. To give to so intolerant a body of people the power to. enforce their will by a bare majority is something that no sensible State would think of doing.