STATE CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 300, 7 September 1918, Page 8

STATE CONTROL

REASONS AGAINST ADOPTION

SPEECH BY MR. J. SIMPSON]

An address setting forth some of the reasons why New Zealand should not adopt State control of the liquor traffic was delivered by Mr. James Simpson, of Toronto, Canada, in the Star Theatre, Newtown, last night. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh, M.P., was unable to bo present to take the chair as ho had promised, being detained on business at Taumarunui. The Bcv. J. Dawson read a telegram of apology from Mr. Hindmarsh. i The Eev. R- S. Gray presided, and introduced the speaker, Mr. Simpson. He assured the audience that the statements that had been made that Mr. Simpson had not come with proper credentials were untrue. Mr. Simpson came with a sheaf of very fine credentials and was, in fact, no mean citizen of his country and of his own city of Toronto. Mr. Simpson would tell why State control was not a satisfactory solution of the liquor traffic problem. . • ' .

Drink the Enemy of the Workers. Mr Simpson said that, he had noted that his presence in New Zealand was giving some people concern. ( He had realised from the outset that his preeence would not be welcome among certain interests. He had nothing to fear front anonymous or other correspondents so long as they stuck to the truth. He wished to say that for him, prohibition was not the greatest of all reforms. He had merely incorporated'it as part of his creed as a Labour man, believing- that drink was one of the worst enemies of the working men. Believing this, he would do his utmost while in New Zealand to help the effort'being made to rid New Zealand of the liquor traffic.

Rcstriotion Impossible. , Every person who had watehed the course 'of legislation dealing with liquor must have noted that the legislation had all been- in the direction of restricting the traffic which brought upon the community so many social and economic evils. Becanso of these ovils it had very- early, been considered that there should ho sonic restriction on the free manufacture and enle of alcoholic liquor He traced the development of the licensed trade in liquor, beginningwith the ycaV 1558. in which year a member «f the 'Rritieh nobility wrote to one of the Cecils, then a member of the Government,-' Slating that tlio common people wore showing less and less deference to the nobility, and that something must lw discovered, to Mo from the people the money which' was givintr them .their indeoondelicc. License's worn given to the servants of the nobility, and the money from the Trade came bunk from the common people to the aristocracy. Later camo, taxation, charges for licenses, and the restriction of the number of licenses. No person had any inherent right to manufacture or sell liquor, otherwise every person in tho meeting would have that right. Every person had a right to make and soil bqer; that trade- was not restricted. Ho spoke of various attempts at restrictive legislation to reduce tho consumption of liquor. AJI of them had failed. Curious facts about liquor . were discovered—men drank it to got warm when they were cold, drank it to cool off when'they were hot, drank it to put them to sleep night, and drank it as an "eye-opener" in the morning. The truth was that.liquor cast some sort of mystic spell over men. When these various expedients failed, various others wero suggested, all forms of State ownership, or control.

r~ State Ownership a Failure, There were three classes of people who asked'for Stato control. Ono class asked for it because they believed in the- making of the commodity for use, and not for profit. They believed that if the element of profit were removed there would bo no incentivo to push the sale of liquor. Others believed the State should buy out the trade in order to close it down. Others! believed that the Stato should turn tbe trade to account by making revenue on it. In Swedon the Gothenburg system had failed, and the- working classes of Sweden were now in favour of prohibition. In South Carolina the Stato dispensaries had failed, and tho province "had declared for total prohibition. In the province of Saskatchewan there had been a law to permit State liquor shops, providing also for abolition of the shops by local veto. At tho very next poll every district voted thorn out by a majority of nine to one. The evils from the salo of vodka in Russia were known to every student of Russian history. Becnuso of tho debauching of tho people by tho private traffic in vodka, the sale of vodka was made a Stato monopoly. The purposo of this monopoly was to reduce tho misery of the people, but the effect was quite otherwise. It was an easy source of revenue, and the Finance Minister, of Russia actually ordered the increase of the shops. The debauchery of the, people was being aggravated. So the Tsar, to save his people, abolished absolutely the sale of vodka. Freed from the demoralising effect of vodka, the people soon rose in their might and overthrew those who had for so long oppressed them, but for tho suppression of the vodka traffic the revolution in Russia never could have been organised. Tho Issue in England. In England last year, when it appeared that war-time Prohibition was not to be obtained, Mr. Lloyd George declared for a measure of State control, and in this proposal lie was supported by many who had previously been Prohibitionists. On examination of this proposal it was found not to lie feasible. Tho sum of money required for the purchase of the trade in Britain was estimated variously at from £250,000,000 to £750,000.000. Tho raising of such a sum of money was out of the question, and very soon the agitation died. Now, there was. a strong demand.for war-time Prohibition, supported by many workers' organisations, including sumo of those of the South Wales minors. It had boon declared that the workers prevented war-time Prohibition. But plebiscites were taken, and in every plebiscite oi workers they had declared for wartime Prohibition. There was now a strongly-held opinion in Britain that it the Government had struck at the right time the liauor traffic could have been suspended during the war period. The Medical Association of tho Unit.vl 'States, comprising 120,000 medical men, had declared not only for prohibition of the manufacture of liquor for beverage purposes, but also had declared for total prohibition of _ iho manufacture of liquor for medicinal purposes.

The Workers in the Trade. Hβ would toko issue with any man professing to speak lor Labour■ who was an advocate ol the. lioiior trnlfio. Ho proceeded to j'ivo a series of .reasons why, in his judgment, no Labour man, no "Socialist, could say that the. btate, Which in the Socialist State would own all the means of life, should own and control the traflic in liquor, a eonimoditv Which had no use, and winch could 'do nothing but hnrin. llio mini who. said that because ho liked liquor, and lilted to consumo it as he wished, ho- did not want Prohibition, however much harm

the trade might do to others, had no right to call himself a Socialist. That man was a puro individualist. The bar-tonders and brewery workers had no right to consider their own economic interests . at_ the' expense of the economic .'interests of other workers. To him the life of a stonemason or a bricklayer was as good as the life of a bar-tender. In, fact, ho had more tiino for the man employed in a useful industry than for tho man in a business which was a trado which did so much to produce misery, prostitution, and degradation of the human race. "Easy Monoy!" His credentials had been questioned. He declared that no Labour man could conie to this country with better credentials than those ho bore. Ho was accused of. being hero for "easy money." The Alliance could publish if it chose what he was getting out of the trip. It was no more than he could make at home. His credentials came from men who had known him since as a boy of fourteen, ho toiled for his daily bread in a tin factory. For thirty years he had fought for the unpopular doctrines of Socialism, without making a dollar out of it, and he would never cease to advocate the imperishable doctrine of the collective ownership of the means of

life. ~ „ Attain lie returned to Ins former proposition that the liquor trade and the consumption of drink were not good for workers, and that the working-class movement, apart from the Prohibition movement, ought to do its utmost to destroy the drink traffic. Mr.' Simpson closed a very fine speech with a brilliant peroration, on "Liberty," which roused the audience to hearty applause. Thd Rev. J. Drake moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Simpson. The vote was seconded by a gentleman in the audience who declared that he had been specially.interested in'the speech as a representative of the coal miners df New He hoped Mr. SimpSon would visit the West Const, where he would be given a good reception. Mr. Gray said Mr. Simpson was going to the Coast. The vote was carried with acclamation.