PROHIBITION AND COMPROMISE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1068, 6 March 1911, Page 4

PROHIBITION AND COMPROMISE.

There arc one or two points of particular interest in tho debates at the Methodist Church Conference at Christchurch . upon the licensing legislation of last session. A number of tho speakers were. very outspoken in their condemnation of the retention of the "three-fifths majority," and no one can quarrel with this frce_ expression of their views. Indeed, it is refreshing in these days when "explaining" exercises so dominant an influence over those in public positions to find men speaking their minds freely. But in the course of the discussion one of the members present interjected that "under the present. Act the vote of Judas Iscariot counted for more than the vote of Jesus Christ." We cannot believe this sentiment expresses tho feelings of the Prohibition party, but we feel sure that nothing is more likely to repel the average man than a cause which is fought on the basis of such comparisons as this. It is regrettable that this suggestion that to vote against No-License is to confess oneself unutterably vile and base—viler and baser, indeed, than any words can express—was allowed to pass wire-' buked and unchallenged by the Conference. It was during this discussion that one of the lay members declared very emphatically that the No-License party had been "sold" over the Bill: and on the following day Mp. L. M. Isitt made a really remarkable statement in contradicHe spoke, he said, "as ono of the inner circle"—a phrase which the public will be rather curious about—and with that special knowledge ho declared that Sir Joseph Ward and Dr. Fixdlay "from start to finisn had treated them fairly— they had treated them generously": "In fact Sis Joseph Ward was quixotic. Sir JosErn Ward admitted that he had given a promise about the 55 per cent, majority, and he said, 'I will fulfil it if you like and ride to a fall.' " But they assured him that they preferred to take the compromise arrived at. After the very decided revolt of public opinion, in connection with the famous compact, against, the idea that the law should bo a privatelyarranged, though publicly-scaled, compromise between two extreme groups, neither of which is representative of the general public—after this, it is surprising that Mr. Isitt should have been indiscreet enough to disclose what went on behind the scenes before the Bill of last session was passed. . But apart from that aspect of tho position, it would be interesting to know what the leaders of the Prohibition party who actually conducted the negotiations with the Prime Minister have to say of Mr. Isitt's remarkable statement. Mr. Isitt's information is only sec-ond-hand, but if correct the leaders of the party who conducted the negotiation-; threw away the best chance they have over had of testing the strength of their cause. If Sir Joseph Wald was prepared to stake his political existence as stated by Mr. Isitt, the Prohibition party, if it believes what it professes, stool to win whatever happened. For if the Prime Minister succeeded in carrying out his alleged promise, the Prohibitionists would gain the end they have been striving for. If he failed, then he could have appealed to the country and tested on a bare majority at the polls the issue which the Prohibition party says the country favours. In other words, if defeated on his proposal in the House, the Piujib Minister could have asked for a dissolutipn and submitted it to the country as his election cry. Mr. Isitt's statement places the leaders of his party in an awkward position with the rank and file of their following. If his version of the Prime Minister's attitude is the correct one, then thd party has again bungled badly. Mr. Isitt, however, may have gained his information from an unreliable source—probably his informant was a politician of the right colour.