LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
THE EFFICIENCY BOARD AND THE DRINK TRADE Sir,—Mr. John Plowman, Jr„ Vrliocvor he may be, tries hard to quarrel with me on the question of compensation, to the liquor trade. In my lottcr appearing in your Monday's issue, I mad« no attempt to represent orthodox prohibition views as altogether identical! with those of the Efficiency Board. In; fact, I distinctly mentioned the "compensation" difference, but did not deem: it necessary then to discuss it. However, since your correspondent and others are so very insistent, here goesMr. Plowman divides temperance people "into two sections: (1) Those who ara 'honest"; (2) those representing tlie Alliance and other orthodox abolitionisi: bodies. The implication is that all frlio comprise the latter'section are dishonest because they do not include compensa- 1 "°n in their programme. Now, we liaro* nothing but the highest respect for thosiwho believe in compensation. We recognise their honesty and zeal for justiceBut we claim that we are just as honest and sincere in our belief to the con*lf' n,c E tate here briefly soma of the reasons that have led the leaders or the abolitionist morement in New Zealand to reject compensation, and Ileave your readers to judge whether Mr. John Plowman, Jr.'s charge against them of wilful dishonesty is fair:— (1) Whenever any claim for comnensation nas been made the Law Courts! have invariably turned it down. ParJ,VrV, ll;lrs <S ' l " s ueh cases can be found in 'The Church and the Liquor Traffic," a oook by the late Rev. T. J. Wills, at pno time Anglican vicar of Ormonrlville, wlio must have gone venr exhaustively into this question. One of the most notable of these decisions was given by TTkj Supreme Court of U.S.A. in 1887, and, among other matters to JVisfify its decision. it said: "It is true that when th» defendants in these cases (Kansas v. Ziebold and Hagelin) purchased or erected tueTr Tjreweriea, the laws of the State did not forbid the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not thereby' give any assurance, or come under any obligation that its legislation on that subject would remain unchanged. . . .
If the public safety or public nr.orals. require the discontinuance ' any manufacture or traffic, the hand of the Legislature cannot be stayed from nioviding for its discontinuance by any incidental inconvenience which individuals or corporations may 'suffer." •
(2) Docs the Stato compensate any ! otiior trade that lias suffered or ceased ! to exist through no fault o£ its own? ' A well-known member of Parliament ro- ' cently told us ho knew of two Christ- | church-business men whose weekly turn--1 over was reduced by one-third by the • Saturday half-holiday. Are they rr.ak- ' ing any claim for compensation, and 1 would they get compensation if tlier ' claimed it? Saddlers and coaclibuildera ' have lost much of their trade through j the coming in of bicycles and motor- [ cars. Do they claim compensation? Is , the principle recognised with regard to- ' any trade, good, bad, or indifferent? . Then why this trade Many men just ! now are leaving farms or billets bringing in, perhaps, .£GOO or -£700 a year (per- , haps more) to' receive the pay of privates. I Are they claiming compensation for their i loss? And the men who are giving i their lives, forsooth! The State may util dertake to support their wives and fami- ■ lies, but it does not and" cannot coms pensato for' • the loss of a husband or father. Tho reason is that it is thought, i rightly or jvrongly, that tile public ini terests demand such sacrifices; and the i public interest is the supreme considera--1 tion. Everything must bow. to that. 1 If abolition of tho drink traffic becomes law, it will be because the people of New Zealand consider such abolition ' to be in tho public interests, and they ■ have- more moral right to say so than has Parliament; for, wrongly or riehfly, • tho latter on the question of conscrip- ' tion, acted "on its own," without consulting tho people. (3) The liquor trade is subject to mors ■ Hi ail the risks of the average trade, and every man who goes into it does so with his eyes open on this point. For about thirty years now abolition of the trado has been advocated, and peoplo in tha trado have had ample notice to quit and get into, other callings. Even granted that compensation would have been just liad prohibition come into force sudden--1 ly 30 years ago, it can surely scarcely be thought so now. (4) Then, again, the' liquor trade has 1 less. moral claim to consideration than. others. Other trades, as, say, the saddlery and coachbuilding trades abovementioned, supply a public demand that is othically and economically defensible. The liquor trade does not. The' science ' of ethics condemns the trade, as also does economics, on the ground of tho gigantic waste it involves. In truth, the boot should be on the other foot. _ If any are to be compensated, surely it is ' tho poor wives and children of tha drunkards whom tho trado has ruined. A quite morally defensible counter-claim could thus be made against the trade. And how would tho trade stand if it were to satisfy {ill these claims? Bankrupt or .solvent? I think-all Teaders must concludo, on an impartial examination of above, that, the charge of 'intentional dishonesty against the founders and all the leaders of the N.Z. Alliance, past and present —grand old men, some of them, too! — because they did not put compensation in their programme, cannot be substantiated. Some of these men have long since "gone before," and your correspondent's charge is thu6, to 6av the least, un-British if not contemptible. However, notwithstanding the- above reasons, I for one am quite open to conviction. If tho trade can prove it i 3 justly entitled to compensation. God forbid that I or any other abolitionist should stand in the way of justice! But our liquor friends liavo not yet proved their case. Whatever evidence tliey tender must be-strong enough to combat all the considerations above stated—l am, etc., C. BOUGHTON .TffRDAN, District Secretary, Methodist Social Service Union.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170910.2.73
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3186, 10 September 1917, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,022LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3186, 10 September 1917, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.