THE MAJORITY QUESTION.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1979, 9 February 1914, Page 5

THE MAJORITY QUESTION.

Sir,—The Scottish Temperance, Act ha? onjy been a circumstance' in. tlie discussion of the majority question !in Now' Zealand. The circumstance has demonstrated, however, that this 1 ' bocalled Tomperanco Act in making provision for a popular vote being taken eight years after, its passage on the licensing. quostion provides for the Licensing Court issuing certificates'to supply liquqr under certain conditions in hotels,' inns and; 'restaurants, even • although No-License :has been carried' by' the required majority in any givon area. This : provides : for the freedom' of the individual to buy' or not to, buy. alcoholic ■ liquors iif he. so i desires,' and' is in striking contrast to th.o'.tyrariny that Prohibitionists aro .so anxious to impose upon this country, to its social, moral, and political degradation. ' « Now the Prohibitionists are clamouring for a reduction of tho majority by which they would force their fetish upon the, people simply because they are despairing of over attaining such a substantial majority as would give sufficiently moral support to No-License as . would ensure respect for law. "Moderate" has contended that the Legislature would not be, warranted in giving support to the Premier's proposal to cut down the majority necessary to carry Prohibition by one-half. • My reasons for tliis' contention must appeal 'to • all fairminded, men and women who love fair play more than they care for a'fad. First, No-License, as shown by ten areas, out of twelve that are now "dry" in New, Zealand,,lias not maintained its ground. In these ten areas on the vote of 1911, No-License could not have been carried, had the vote been an original one. * Second, tho-injustice and tyranny of the present law is Exhibited in the fact that these ten "dry" areas are less, favourable to Prohibition and No-License than many "wef'areas that enjoy freedom under licensing. Third, when No-License has not maintained its strength in the districts where it operates that is prima facie evidence oi the undesirable and ! tyrannous character of No-License, and that after experience tho people of Prohibition districts display a strong desire to return to licensing. ; With these facts established any politician who would propose to recluco a majority of votes required to' carry NoLicense by one-half when ten of those districts of their iown free-will and ac-; cord have a disposition to return - to licensing must either not be aware'of these facts or-he_has' accepted for gospel, the statements of the * Prohibitionist; agitators, who. are only anxious to degrade the wholo country. - Further, the fact that a majority of .64,000 voted two_ ' ago in favour of Natiorial Prohibition does not imply' that such a vote is favourable to the reduction' of the'majority by one-half necessary. to carry'tlie .proposal. "Yet this is the'" preSumptuSft "or •' Prohi-' bitionist leader/'' - ■ On a question of this kind, .when the morals of the. people, tlio.private property ofindividuals, and tlie "financial stability of the Dominion are the stakes, those who are" opposed to the "seven devils" that' Prohibition breeds, to the protection if individual rights .and the maintenance of'tlie'country's''credit* are surely more to -be- considered than those who would infest the entire country ( with sly-groggeries, illicit, homo and secret drinking,- debauchery, deceit, perjury, and general contempt for law, with a pelicy of; destruction and degradation and financial embarrassment. To use the words"of■ your evening contemporary, the "Post," "Why should the votes of Prohibitionists. and; non-drinkers- be equal to those of moderates who see no- '' , ' ■T- '

thins immoral or criminal in a rational use of 010 or wine? Is it democratic to give the abstainers equal voting strength for stopping the use of commodities which they dcorn ?" : There is equity in the proposal that if a majority is 'l-equired it should be a majority :of those on tho rolls, for a "three-fifths": of thoso voting may not bo a "bare majority" of the people entitled to'vote) hence "the necessity for a ''substantial" majority. It is doubtful if any majority has the right to deprive one individual of the privilege of spending a' sixpence in alcoholic beverages any more than two men—a 66 2-3 majority—have to deprive their neighbour of his purse. My faith in. the judgment of majorities to do the right thing has never been strong' since they destroyed the best of beings and acquitted Barabbas.—l am, etc.; , MODERATE.