PROHIBITION AND POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1442, 17 May 1912, Page 5

PROHIBITION AND POLITICS.

Sir,—Your article of the 3rd instant, as above, called attention to a statement made just before by Mr. A. S. Adams at U.T. Reform Council meeting in Dunedin: "That it was very largely owing to Mr. L. M, Isitt's efforts and strength of character that there was not now in office a Government bitterly antagonistic to the Prohibition ideal, instead of onb that had the majority of its members pledged to reduce the 60 per cent, handicap to at least 55 per cent." Tub Dominion, after doubting the wisdom of dragging tho liquor question right into the firo of party politics, ; asked Mr. Adams, as a very prominent member of tho Alliance, to consider whether he ought not to make himself perfectly clear upon the points noted. But a fortnight has about passed'since then, and no reply has appeared from Mr. Adams or friends.

If we allow that Mr. Adams meant that through Mr. Isitt's efforts and strength of character there is in the present Ministry a majority of members in favour of the reduction of the 60 per cent, test, I would like to state that on November 10, 1910, division in committee on the present License Bill, live of the Ministry now in office voted for the B0 per cent, test, two opposed it, the remaining three did not vote, although entitled to, so, with these, where do Messrs.- Adams and Isitt get their majority from ? Or, again, of the fifty-four members who voted for it, Hansard supplies their names, also of the fifteen who opposed the 60 per cent., I find, by a late Hansard, that of those fiftyfour, thirty-eight, or 70 per cent.,_ are members of the present House, while of the fifteen opposers, but seven, or 47, per cent, are members. The Alliance's prominent members should or must, know these things, so I must ask again where does their said majority exist? Tiik Dominion of December 23 kindly inserted from me a reference to the position of the No-License districts, as exhibited bv the press returns of votings in 1908 and 1911, for eleven districts (Bruce being omitted), which showed a gambalance, roughly, of 5383 votes for restoration of license over non-restoration. I find from the New Zealand Gazette figures of February, including Bruce, left the improvement in favour of restoration of license in 1911 of 5G02 votes—and that three of the twelve districts in 1911 had a majority of votes for restoration, but not up to the required three-fifth test, while in 1908 there was but one such. The Domhuon, also of March li last, published from me a comparative table showing the full 68 license districts' votes in 1908, from the Year Book, and for 1911, from the 1912 February New Zealand Gazette, the totals in both cases being votes cast for License and for No-License combined. To these I showed separately for each district the votes cast for Continuance of License, with its percentage of total votes. The Alliance, on tho eve of the late election of December 7. issued their No. 21 New Zealand Alliance leaflet, ignorin" the Government classing of licenses of 63 districts, for 76 electorates ior 1908, saving in 1908 45 electorates, voted a majority against licenses: 15 against license by a three-fifths vote, and 16 only for license bv a majority, claiming that this showed it is doomed. For these 16 electorates the population was said to be 200,000. By mr table for 1908 I show 43 districts with a majority against license, nine against with a three-firth vote, and sixteen for license. . But the same system as used for 1908 shows lor 1911, thirtv-three districts, instead of fortythree in 1908, with a majority against license; one only instead of nine against license, with a three-fifths vote; and thirtv-four instead of sixteen for license bv ft" majority, showing that it is not doomed, as the Alliance betoro stated. Its 50.25 per cent, of tho votes cast was more than half of the total numocr. so that probablv more, than 500,000 of bof Zealand people, instead of the Alliances 200,000 in 1908, are in favour of licenses being continued under tho local option system, which, much more, than the muddled National Prohibition returns, explains the correct will of the people. Apologising for again troubling you—l am, etc., WIGHTMIN. May 15, 1912.