PROHIBITION AND POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1430, 3 May 1912, Page 4

PROHIBITION AND POLITICS.

A statement of a surprising character was made by Mr. A. S. Adams at a meeting of the United Temperance Reform Council in Dunedin on Monday night. He said he wished to "place on record his sense of the deep obligation which the No-License workers of New Zealand were under to M1 1 . L. M. Isitt for the splendid work he had done during the last few weeks. He had worked most unselfishly and effectively in a very difficult situation, and it- was very largely owing to his - efforts and strength of character that there was not now in office a Government bitterly antagonistic to the Prohibition ideal, instead of one that had the majority of its members pledged to reduce the 60 per cent handicap, to at least 55 per cent." Presumably it is on Mr. Isitt's own authority that Mr. Adams indicated in this" way that Me._ Isitt's real object in taking part in the caucus settlement was the furthering, or what he fancied was the furthering, of the Prohibition cause. Of course the member for Christchurch North is entitled to his private objects, but we were all given to understand that it was his exceeding devotion to what he and his "Liberal" 'friends call "progress" that alone persuaded him to become a party hack. We arc not concerned, however, with Mr. Isitt, but with Mr. Adams's unwise dragging of the liquor question right into the fire of party politics. For that is what he has done. It is not clear whether by the Government he means the. Mirf' istry or the whole party; nor is it clear what is the Government which, in his opinion, would have been bitterly antagonistic to the Prohibition ideal." Since he is a very prominent member of the Alliance, Mr. Adams might consider whether he ought not to make himself perfectly clear upon these points. It is really very difficult to understand how the Alliance can possibly advauco its cause by displaying, or by permitting its leaders to display, a readiness to allow the liquor issue to dominate the whole political situation. ~ As a matter of actual fact, although the "Liberal" party has for years had no stouter support than that of the brewing 'interests —the fact is notorious—neither the "Liberals" as a party nor the Eeforra party has ever .wished to burden themselves with the liquor question as a party issue. In both parties there are friends and supporters of Prohibition. Mr. Adams may be anxio'us to help his friend Mr. Isitt and his good friends the "Liberals," but we fancy that there must be in the ranks of the Prohibitionists a few men iof authority who will see that no good can come of these injudicious attempts to represent one political party as the friend, and the other as the enemy. We' very much doubt whether Mr. Adams or anyone else can say definitely of every member of the House exactly what is his position on the liquor question. Certainty we cannot. But what is certain is that a great many, men on both sides in the House would resent—ancl they would be reflecting the resentment of the country as a whole—any attempt to split general politics along the liquor line. To a great section of the No-License voters there are more important issues than the liquor issue, and.these would refuse to subordinate their opinions on other questions to their belief in No-License. The No-License party owes so much to the votes of those who also voted Refonra last December that one can hardly imagine anything more unwise, from the Prohibition point of view, than Mr. Adams's anxiety to recall again to the minds of these electors their resentment of the political performances of the member for Christchurch North.