THE DRINK BILL.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1887, 23 October 1913, Page 11

THE DRINK BILL.

LIQUOR AND NO-LICENSE. SOME STRIKING COMPARISONS [By MODERATE.] The Parliamentary reiur." published in August, 1913, at the call of t-be Hoy. L. M. Isitt, provides some nuts to crack for those who believe that NoLicenses lessens the aggregiito consumption of alcoholic liquors, prevents their general use in No-License areas, or abolishes evidences of. excess, viz., drunkenness. Yet those whose faith in No-Lieenso in these respects cannot be supported by logical deductions from this Parliamentary return, are now having recourse to conjecture, assertion and supposition to detract from and explain away the actual lessons of the return itself. Matters extraneous to the return have been brought in, and it will he necessary also to expose the fallaciousness of tho conclusions deduced therefrom. The main features of. the return wore: —Huudreds of thousands of gallons of "liquor have been used in No-License areas; hundreds of cases of drunkenness have been ' acknowledged ; and thousands of cases of various forms of criminality have been discovered, punished, and recorded against No-License districts. Prohibitionists are not satisfied with theso records against- tho No-Lieenso districts, and are putting forward conjectural deductions fromi the return, fondly believing that the hundreds of thousands of gallons of liquor legitimately consumed in No-License areas represents the total amount actually, brought in and consumed in tho districts under No-License. It is a fond belief: a fond dolusion. . In sight of all this liquor going into their pet No-License districts, the NoLicense party lias come to the conclusion that, local No-License is nothing more than a make-shift, and now their writer says that National Prohibition is the remedy. National Prohibition could only mean an aggravation over a greater area of the evils, iniquities and abominations of No-License. Let us prove our case. Invercarglll Under Mo-Licanss, As tho Prohibitionists have cited Invorcargill as a typical NoJjieense area, and as tho amount of beer that is made for its people can be ascertained, its condition under No-License is Worthy of consideration. The population of Invcrcargill is (Year Book, 1912, p. 119), which is one-eighty-two of the population of the Dominion taken as 1,008,000 (Ibid., p. 104). The consumption of liquor as represented by the duty paid on beer manufactured in Invercargill and entered -for homo consumption was in:— 1905 Last year of License ..... JGI.iJG 11 4 1912 Latest 'return under No. Licenso JGI,BGO 17 G (vido Collector of Customs Returns, 1912). This amount of duty paid -in 1912 represents at Sd. per gallon, tho duty on beer, a consumption of beer alone in No-License Invercargili of 148,870 gallons. Wo leave out wino and -spirits, as the quantities of these aro not ascertainable accurately. If tho whole of the pooplo in the Dominion consumed beor at tho samo rate as the people of Invercargill under NoLicense, then the total consumption would bo 11,475,600 gallons, as against 9,526,960 gallons. (\ear Book, p. 403.) This is considerably above the-average: Con Sum- Gallons • !' ' t'ion con- . " sumed beer in per gallons, head. • InTercargill under No-Li- . v cense 148,870 11.58 Dominion under License 9J526j960 9.20 To show how extensive tho home:consumption of beer is in No-License areas it is only necessary to mention that, irrespective of hogsheads and barrels, thoro' were no fewer than 39,011 twogallon kegs of beer distributed from brewers' wagons last ycir. (Vide Customs Returns, 1912-13.) And when it is shown that, more beer is consumed in one No-License area whero the consumption can be ascertained by the amonnt of duty- actuallypaid, . it is reasonable-' to conclude that other No-Lroeiiso areas, where no such record is available —the supplies coming in duty paid from other districts —consume equally as much. Then why indulge in> conjectural estimates about £1000 per_ month representing the value of illicit liquor going into all No-Licenso areas? Invereargill's actual duty paid_ beer— a perfectly legitimate consumption—and its two-gallon keg consumption—32so kegs per month —explodes all Prohibitionists' conjectures and assertions as to No-License reducing even tho quantity of alcoholic liquors consumed in No-Liconso areas. No-Lloense Breeds Sly Crog-Shopa. That this statement is -borne out by the returns is adequately, shown by a glance at tho following (vide police report, 1912, pp. 4-10) Sly grog cases. Fines. Invercargill (No-License) 23 .£415 Wanganni (License) — 75 Napier (License) — 2-5 As these police districts are similar in size and importance they afford reasonable evidence of the impetus NoLicense gives to, tho breeding of the slygroggeries with all their accompanying abominations. The Sly Groggery is by No-Licenso out of more criminality is the progeny of all. No-Llcense and Drunkenness. The Prohibitionist quotes Inspector Mitchell's statement of 1909, to the effect:—"Casos of drunkenness havo been few, considering," etc. This was written, of Invercargill. In the polico report for 1912, Inspector O'Donovan writes of tho samo place that "the cases of drunkenness have increased by fortyfour during tho year." Dnuikoimess, then, in No-Licenso Invercargill is evidently increasing. The Parliamentary paper (H-16, p. 3) gives the number of cases of drunkenness in Invercargill in 1912 as 297 —283 males and 14 females. And there were altogether 832 persons arrested for various offences (vide Mr. Isitt's return). But in comparison with the rest of the Dominion these figures work out as under: — Per cent. Per cenPopu- Drunken- drunken-tage lation. ness. Crimes, ness. Crime. Invercargill (say 20,000) 297 832 1.48 4.16 Dominion (say 1,000,000) 11,699 23,493 ' 1.16 ■ 2.31 '(The actual population is 12,782 of Invercargill and of the Dominion 1,008,000.) As crime is. decreasing in the Dominion (vide Sir Robert Stout-, C.J., at Napier), the bad showing that NoLicense Invercargill makes in comparison must be attributable to the slv prog-shop, the direct outcome of Nofiicense. No-Llcense Retards Progress, All authorities are agreed that the progress of a country may be measured, by the growth of its population. To this test the Prohibitionist has invited us to put tho "No-Licenso or partially dry" areas of this Dominion. We accept tho figures stating the population in tho No-License territory as given for tho respective years quoted, and this is how these areas stand when compared with tho Test-:f the country: — 1 Per 1901 1908 Inc. cent. Population of No-Licenso 1 areas 316,101 340,080 23,679' 7,15 Populatioa of Licensed I areas ...... .450,31& 608,569 • 152,2 pL 33,16

As Otago and Southland possess tho greatest area of territory under prohibition, it is worth while* comparing 'tho growth in population of those provincial districts with the rest- of tne Dominion :— Pop. Pop. Inc. 1901 1911 p e. Otagflr and Southland 573,145 191,130 10.4 Eest of Dominion 599,574 817,338 30.1 It lias frequently been remarked that Prohibitionists are onlv attempting to retard the progress and development of the Dominion and give it a set-back from which it can never recover, by endeavouring to enforco No-License and National. Prohibition upon it. It lias also been observed that the carrying of No-License in certain areas has a destroying influence and a stagnating effcot. The Prohibitionist writer has' enabled the opponents of No-License to show that dullness and stagnation do rapidly over-take all No-License areas. If, therefore, you desire to proclaim to the world what No-License has done for New Zealand you will he able to point to the " No-Licenso or paitially dry areas," and say: "These are tho least progressive parts of this Dominion, and their condition is due to the policy which Prohibitionists have forced upon them." Compared with "wet" areas s tha "dry" place 3of this Dominion aro only making about one-fifth of tho gene- ■ ral progress, and yet tho No-License ' party would like to force their policy of s stagnation upon the wholo country. In 3 the light of these figures the person " who' preaches No-Liconso and Prohibi- " tion for New Zealand cannot bo rogard- > ed as tho friend or lover of this coun- " try. No-Licenso Promotes Secret and illicit 0 Drinking. The Prohibitionist proceeds to deal { specifically with arrests for drunkenness in Otago and Southland, as compared with those in other provinces, 3 but when it has been shown that, tho x consumption of liquor has not <3iminishj ed in the area where its consumption is approximately ascertainable, and that sly-grog selling is more prevalent in 0 No-License areas, it is reasonable to " say that Prohibition or No-Liipense lias driven the liquor into shebeens and pri- ' vato houses where- drinking to excess T cannot be discovered oven by the , police. In No-License districts those formerr ly favourable to Prohibition havo ob- " served Show Prohibition operates, and are now 'pointing out the dangers tf this phase of No-License. The Rev. Mr. Rogers, of Hinds (Ashburton), in a Ber- . mon delivered on August 24, 1913, "denounced drunkenness ill vigorous terms, and urged all to shun 1 tho temptation s wliich ho believed was greater in a disf triot where there were no licensed . "houses." (Vide "Ashburton Guardiau,' 1 August 29.) e In Invercargill three young men were s found "kegging" in a stable at mid- _ night, and were sentenced one to _ two v years , another to one year's imprison- - ment, and the other was convicted and - discharged. • (Vide daily newspaper, October 2, 1913.) ... t . In licensed districts such features or No-License havo not been reproduced, and aro only to bo witnessed in Prohibition areas. What Has No-Llcense Dona? Out of sixty-eight licensing districts : there are twelve No-Licenso areas, and as some of theso aro thickly populated, being in closo proximity to largo centres —like Grey Lj'nn and n ellington South—it is safe to affirm that onesixth of the people of tho Dominion aro under No-Lioense,' Now, if No-Licenso were to be sonously treated as an effectivo reform, if it could be presumed to'fulfil what is claimed for it by tho Prohibitionists, it would be reasonable to argue that as ' one-sixth of the peoplo are in ' [ areas, there ought to be a corresponding reduction in the quantity and value ,• of alcoholic liquors consumed. _ No-License was established in on© I area in 1893, and is at present opera- ' tiye over twelve districts. The fol- , lowing table shows that- No-Licenso has ; not diminished -the importation, manufacture, and consumption of alcoholic , beverages (vido Year Book, 1901-12): Beer in Wine in Spirits in i Year. gals. gals. gals, • ' 1895 5.138,170 93,133 435,431 ; 19H ■ 9)526,900 113,138 791,8a5 The next tablo will show that not ' only lias the quantity been increased, but tlio consumption per h«ad of the population has been steadily advancing, ' despite the success (sic) of No-Liceuse: 1 Beer . . consumption Wino Spirits per head used per used per Year, in gals, head, gals, head, gals. 1895 7.121 0.135 0.629 1911 9.205 0,141 O.i 81 ! As if to give tho "lie direct" to the ■ assertion that "an increase in driaik ■ consumption leads to an increase m criminality," Sir Robt. Stout', C.J., at ' Napicrj on September 15, 1913, showed ■ that crime has been decreasing during 1 .the past thirty years—all the while consumption of beer, wino, and spirits has been increasing :— Beer Persons consumption per in prison pel" head of pop. ■ Year. 1000 of pop. excluding Maoris 1896 9.70 7.87 1901. 9.05 : 9.41 1906 9,80 9.56 1911 8.51 9.65 Sir Robert Stout n'dded: "Not only • has prison population decreased relatively to the- population, but. serious . crime has absolutely decreased." Leaving out tho No-Liconso areas ; where tho sly-grog business produces an ' inordinate amount of criminality, and i speaking generally, wo see that beer increases, and crime decreases. _ No-Li- . cense areas breed sly groggcries and crime, dullness and stagnation, licensed . areas display clean living, growth of population, and bounding prosperity. \ Yet Prohibitionists solemnly affirm 5 that crime grows most whero beer flows j in greatest abundance, and that there is , moral, racial, and economic- decay and . failure where alcoholic liquors are used. ! The facts are all a.gainst them. , A Matter of Eugenics, Turks are i prohibitionists. Among l them is immorality and racial decay. 1 America, Great Britain, and Germany ( have the largest drink bills, tho greatest 5 prosperity, and stand in the front rank r for high moral principles among Chris- . tian nations. Prohibitionists and drunkt ards are the best No-License lecturers, t but they aro botfy alike examples that wiso men and women will not follow. . Being extremists, they both exhibit e neurotic tendencies hardly capable of . cure. Eugenics, "tho latest and greatest of our sciences," is revealing to us 5 tho damage extremists do to our race and civilisation. Neither prohibition nor 1 drunkenness has yet benefited a na- - lion's morals. Temperance and modor- ) ation undoubtedly have, but they are - activo virtues, not active policies of t negation and destruction. When No-Lieenso advocates assert - that moderate and abstemious consuin- < ers of alcoholic beverages "exercise by - theso habits a deleterious influence on their children," they do not understand the subject, for Dr ; Edgar Schuster, M.A., D.Sc., of Oxford, says ("Eugen3. ies," p. 195): "When tho reasoning on j which the assertions are made is subj' jected to a critical examination so many [ fallacies can be detected in it that no j weight whatever can be attached to tho . conclusions." i That is fair criticism of most statei ments emanating from a Prohibitionist j or No-License source. : ——— * ."v The youth he gazed in her dear eyes, Sho knew he was a gonner, , And that a willing slave ho'd be, Who'd heap his wealth upon her. But one condition she imposed 5 Before buying the furniture, •That lie should ever keop a supply Of Woods' Great Peppermint Cure. 3 r-Advt.