THE MEETING OF PROTEST

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2842, 5 August 1916, Page 7

THE MEETING OF PROTEST

Sir,—After reading your leport of the meeting of protest against the action of Parliament in refusing to amend the War Regulations Bill to include six o'clock closing, I have oome to the conclusion 'that the meeting of protest was utterly uncalled for. The statements made by the majority of the speakers were either,-made in ignorance or were intended to be misleading. If made in ignorance the statements are excusable; if m<ule with full knowledge of. the facts they are to be condemned. Jt is the duty of clergymen and public speakers to make themselves cognisant of the facts of their' case before they attempt to guide the public and instruct them on questions of politics, l'or instance, the Rev. Knowlo's Smith said: "The six o'clock closing clause of the Dill bad been wiped out." That statemeut would make people believe that there was a clause in the \\\ir Regulations Bill closing hotels at six o'clock, but that Parliament had wiped it out. . This, sir, is quite wrong. There was no. such clause in the Bill. The speech of Mr. Wright was full of inac-. curacies. He said that the first movement made for early closing was made by "a small committee of Wellington indies, who had asked the Minister of Defence to close the hotels at 6 p.m., and establish .wet canteens in the camps." Jt is a well-known fact that the committee of ladies referred to asked for 7 o'clock closing, not 6 o'clock; and that wet canteens in the camps were an essential if 7 o'clock closing were adopted. Now this ladies' committee, when they discovered that wet canteens were not favoured by the Government, dropped their request for early closing, localise they did not want to penalise the man in uniform against the man who wore civilian clothes. The Prohibitionists themselves 'shifted their ground when the military authorities, such as Colonel Potter and Colonel Adams, affirmed that earlier closing would have to be followed by wet canteens. Again. Mr. Wright said that the Moderate League tavoiuvi! (V* proposal of early closing. I have failed to discover any ground for sin-!: .-i'i assertion. The most astounding statement which Mr. .Wright made was that the Prohibitionists wanted earlier closing as a war measure, because-/ he said, "It would restrict the facilities for obtaining drink." Now, sir, I would like to ask what good the restriction in the facilities for obtaining liquor has hitherto effected in New Zealand? AVhen the Prohibition movement began there wore sonie sixteen hundred licensed premises in New Zealand for the sale of liciuor. 'J'hese facilities have been reduced by ?5 per cent., yet the consumption of liquor per head o( tbo population lias increased by over per cent. Thus'it cannot be said that restrictions upon the facilities for obtaining drink have iii any way reduced individual consumption. No good case has been made for early closing of hotels, and it ill brcame 3lr. Wright to traduce the workers of Great Britain, when, )f he had known the (acts, he would have realised that it was not liquor in their case that had coiilraeled the output of munitions. Then he told his audience that Russia had suppressed the drink traliic. But in Russia >nly vodka has been abolished, and wines mid bee.r are as freely sold Hero as before the war. Indeed, iu X'JII the duty paid on beer in Russia was only fifteen and a half million roubles, and the Minister of Finnnce estimates tho revenue for 1915 from this source at thirty-seven and a liajf millions. So that the abolition of vooica has led to an enormous increase in the consumption of beer. AVith regard to Great Britain, tho public men .who were once favourable to Prohibition have abandoned it for State control. liven Mr. Lloyd George himself has been converted from Prohibition tendencies to State control. All the distilleries, breweries, and hotels iu Carlisle, and district hnvo been absorbed by the Liquor Control Board, and all these institutions are now manufacturing and distributing liquor, not only in Carlisle and neighbourhood, but for' other portions of Great Britain. State control has converted thousands, because it is founded npo" justice and equity. Apropos of this point, I would .'ike to ouoto what the "Tima.ru Herald"

said in a leading article on July 2-1. Mr. Wright' put forward the plea that early closing was a war measure. Tho "Timaru Herald" says: "Early closing is not needed for our troops. Tho economy which is designed'to help a righteous war should be based on justice, even to a publican." The leading newspapers throughout the country have adopted tho view that any economy in this direction would liavo been purchased by injustice to publicans, unless they were fully compensated for their losses, because, as the "Otago Daily Times" pointed out, "the decision of the electors at the last election created 11 contract between tho State and tho holders of licenses that they would not be disturbed in the prosecution of their trade during the period of threo years for which their licenses were extended." Yet, notwithstanding nil this, wo linve some of the so-called moral and religious leaders of the community trying to work up an agitation against Parliament for its action in respecting the people's contract, and in not giving way to the hysterical influences of tho Prohibition agitators. Jt is difficult to understand why Mr. .A. I?. Atkinson should upbraid the churches and the religious people for not having adequately played their part in the Prohibition movement for early closing. More and mora aro leading churchmen and religious people coming to the conclusion that there is nothing Christian about Prohibition, with all its splutter, bombast, malevolence, and injustice, and few selfrespecting Christians are associating themsolves political agitation which has tfhown itself to be utterly worthless, oven in the way of temperance reform, having accomplished nothing in all these twenty-five '■ years to justify its existence and continuance.—l am, etc., TEMPERANCE.