LIQUOR BATTLE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 104, 27 January 1919, Page 6

LIQUOR BATTLE

MODERATE LEAGUE'S VIEWS

CRITICISM OF PROHIBITIONISTS ARGUMENT FROM CRIME FIGURES [Extended Eeport, Published by Arrangement] * A meeting called by the Moderate League was held in His. Majesty's Theatre last, night, at which speakers on behalf of .the league presented a case for the consideration of electors regarding the decision they are to make at the licensing poll to bo taken during the month of April.this year. The league speakers were Mr. D.'M. Findlay,, president, end Mr. R. A. Armstrong, secretary of the league. Mr. A. Gray, ICC, wns in the chair.

The chairman said that the meeting had been called for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the leaders of the Moderate League to pronounce their views on of the burning questions of the day, and to enable the citizens of "Wellington to hear tho. views of the Moderate League on that subject. The Moderate League, as its name implied, was an association of citizens who claimed to represent the view of moderate persons, who were not directly interested in the liquor trade, and who were not with the people of the opposite , way of 'thinking—the prohibitionists. The Moderate League claimed that there were- n very large number of persons throughout this country whoso views ought to be treuted witli respect, supporting the principle,* fjor which the league fstood. • It was within their knowledge that an important amendment had been made in the licensing Jaw last session, but it was surprising how many people there were.in the country who did not know, the. effect of the amendments made in the law. That Act, like many others dealing with important social legislation, was passed in the closing hours of the session, in a great hurry, and without much consideration. It had imported into licensing legislation a new principle. A referendum was to be''held in April next on the issues of Prohibition with compensation to the trade, and continuance of existing' licenses. ■■' These were the only two issues to be submitted to the poll. There was to. be no middle course open. What the Moderate League etood for was continuance of the 'trade with reformation. He understood that the league'had been prepared to submit to the Government a scheme of reforma- i tion for the trade which they thought would be in the interests of the whole community, but the Government, perhaps through want of time, had not been able to give .consideration to the scheme. To the surprise, of the Moderate League, and' no doubt many >other persons, tho legislation to which he hnd referred was carried at the last .session of Parliament. If Continuance were carried at this poll in April, another poll would be taken at the general election, probably at the end of this year, on the three issues of Continuance, Prohibition without compensation, and State ownership. But if Prohibition were to be carried at the special poll-there would be no further poll on the licensing question at any time. "The Other Side of the Question," 'Mr. S. M. Findlay said that it was matter for great gratification to him to find at the meeting such a largo audipnee to hear what he might call "the other side" of the liquor question. ; They had been hearing a good d&l about one side of the question—the Prohibition side. They ought to. know all that was being done in Saskatchewan and Medicine Hat and places with such peculiar nanies, but they had heard very, little about where the moderate section of the community stood, and .what attitude they would take at the poll to be taken on April 10. In a sense the representatives of the league appeared at the meeting under protest, because they did not think that this was the time when they should be compolled to come before the people on a subject of the kind. There were matters of a great, deal more urgency requiring Attention at the present than this question of licensing. .(Applause.) There wore grievous questions before the country, and yet they were to _ be embroiled in this question, and their hands and tongues were to be tied,except on this question. It was important that the people should hear the other side, because there' was a great deal of intolerance about tho .Prohibition Party. It was because of this intolerance that the Moderate League thought it proper, (hut they should come forward to defend what they considered to be the personal liberties of the people.. (Applause.) There were organised forces against the league of the greatest magnitude. The political organisation of the Prohibition Party was one of the finest political organisations this 'country had ever seen, and that organisation was responsible for hibition people hnd secured their referendum. The blame for'this must be put upon the prohibition people, but-some of the blame must also be attributed to the. weakness of the administration and tho weakness of t'arlinmc'nt. The prohibition people had secured' thei rreferendum, and if 'they succeeded in their attempt to carry' prohibition the liberties of moderate p.eopl'e would he violated. This was why the moderate people had been compelled to take the field. He wished it to be made quite clear that this prohibition that wae to J>e submitted to the people wae to be absolute prohibition. It was to prohibit the sale, importation, or manufacture of any alcohol except for certain specific purposes— industrial, sacramental, or.medicinal. It would prohibit the manufacture in tho homes of the people of home-brewed alcoholic beverages. There could be no doubt that this was the law. He was not quoting his own opinion merely; The league had taken the advice of the highest authority in the. land. Ho wished ■ it to be borne in mind also that while a continuance vole in April would not be a conclusive vote, a prohibition vote would bo absolutely final If the people voted for continuance in April they would have a chance in November or. December of voting'for State Ownership as a new issue, or for prohibition without corapensafjjm. But if' prohibition were carried in April there would bo no further, reference of the question to tho people. Tho Proper Course. Ho was going to suggest thnt the proper course for n reasonable man to follow would bo lo Vote continuance at the poll in April, in .order that he might have , a fuller "opportunity of exercising his preference at the general election. Why was there this tremendous haste to carry prohibition with compensation! . The reason was that the Prohibition Party, being a very astute party, knew that this was the. psychological moment for-the,'proposal The Prohibitionists, wanted .to avoid the issue of State ownership, which would ba a splendid reform, nnd" th<f only real solution of this wretched question, and thoy wanted to a-void the soldiers' vote. (Applause and "Hear, hear.") This wps the reason for the indecent haste of Prohibitionists regarding this poll in April. There was another reason: their organisation was well in hand, and they considered that by :i catch vote, they could carry this question in April, even against a majority of the people of the country. There was the greatest difficulty in getting people to the poll, and under these circumstances it would \y>, possible for the Prohibiti-m----ist.i to carry their side against a majority of people opposed to flirai, but Tiot .•-.ctivcly enough concerned bi take Hi" trouble to r> to the noil 'I'h? Prnhibitinnifi'u would all 'lx> thpr-.. nn'Hio honi'd Hint the moderate* would wait" ,i'n In , ' forn H»'i.t. Hmo, nm! rn-lro sure that they w«iiM b» the" al"> If I'ito was to h« :\ rpf n rpr«liim lpt it lip hold "t a tin" , , nnd unclni- cirrum-tnucp" whMi wonl- 1 "ire n sound p n<l sub'tnutip' <•! tin , "'l'ninn of the neotilo of thi» i--ii"try on this subject so important to them. ■ Prohibition Partv's Methods Critteiser , . Something might be said about the methods of the Prohitibion Party. An interesting little story might bo told

about what was known as the six o'clock closing "amendment. He would not discuss the rights niitl wrongs of six o'clock Closing, but lie would use this merely os tin example of Hie methods of the Prohibition Party. There was to be no referenco to six o'clock closing in the Bill. ■There was no doubt that tho arrangement made jvas that six o'clock'closing was to remain for the period of the war and six months afterwards. What did the Prohibitionists do? When the Bill was going through a cabal of members in the House got together, and, without letting any other members of the House, know what'they intended to do, sprung tho amendment on the House, and carried it, although if proper warning had been given of Hie question there would have been a majority ,asrainst it. Ministers had said that the affair was an arrant piece of political trickery. He believed also that sonie of the more reputable members of the Prohibition Party would have.nothing to do with it These were the methods of the Prohibition Party. The Prohibition Party had been sailing under the colours of efficiency, for there had been formed what was known as the Efficiency League, to be a sort of help-mate to the Prohibition Party. The most prominent members of the Efficiency League and the Prohibition Party said that this experiment in prohibition would cost the country .£1,315,000 per year. He had repeatedly nsked Sir Joseph Ward and His colleagues how they proposed to make up the loss of revenue and the interest that would be required to pay for the debentures for compensation, but they had alwaye-been dumb dogs. Neither the Government nor tho Prohibition Party wanted 'to alarm the people on this matter. Was the increased taxation to be put on the Customs, or was it to be atfded to income tax? As a matter of fact, it was going to add something like 25 per cent, to the Customs taxation, or a little over, 25 per cent. to the income tax, taking the' figures for 1917, which were already heavy war figpanperisni or to insanity.

" This precious Efficiency League had declared that Prohibition would at once save 70 per cent, of the cost of tlie ' police, 70 per cent, of the cost of-indiis-j trial schools, 70 per cent, of charitable I aid, and 70 per cent, of the cost of the i gaols. And all this saving was to be j made on June 30 next! Seventy per i cent, of the police would no longer be i necessary after that date. He did not i know how the oilier, thirty per cent. ; wq,uld have to lie spread over tlie conn. : try watching the cutters coming in with i kegs. In America it had been found l that Prohibition kept the police mighty : busy. In four Prohibition States of ' America the police had discovered 2000 i illicit stills. The Efficiency League conI sidered that there would-be a saving of '•10 per cent, in old-age pensions, 40 per cent, in hospitals, and 40 per cent, in mental hospitals. Forty per cent, of the old-nge pensioners were going to die I off on June 30, 40 per cent, of tho ! lunatics in the asylums were going to get all right on that date, and 40 per cent, of the people in the hospitals were going to be cured right awny! It was a wonderful thing, this Prohibition! Mr. Findlay quoted a medical authority, an expert in diseases of the mind, Dr. William A. White (America). This medical man had written his opinion that the cutting off of drink from a certain type of man whose habit was to indulge -over-freejy would not make him into a good citizen. Statistics had shown that as drunkenness was lessened admissions to insane asylums and poorhouses had increased. His deduction was that persons prone to indulge unduly in alcohol were mental defectives in some way, and that if their weakness did ,not show in alcoholic excess it would show |'in as a type of lnentaldiseaso leading to, ures. ' .. ■

, He would not discuss-at any length \}\e question of alcohol from a scientific viewpoint. The reason why ho would not refer to it was that he believed the neople hnd had' a rewnt experience—the eydemic—whi,eh had convinced thorn already better than anything he could tell'them, of;the nropriety of- having alcohol readily available as a medicine." They had had a test of prohibition durin? the epidemic, and tho experience of that time had struck a death-blow to prohibition. (Applause.) This was not alone what tho moderates had said about it, but a £ood deal of what the prohibitionists had said about it. Over and over again xprohibitionists had said to him that if under prohibition the difficulty in procuring liquor for medicinal purposes was to be as great, as it was -vhilp 'the epidemic n-as in progress, they would vote against prohibition. Ho himself would declare, as president of the Moderate League, that the solution of the liquor trouble was in State ownership of the trade, and as president of the Moderate League he would do his best to bring this about. He would be prepared to throw over the continuance issue, and to ask that the people be given a vote by bare majority on the issues nf prohibiton or State ownership. It would lie better to yait , untilthe soldiers returned before trying to settle this question. These men had a riijht to vole, and they had- a right to have their views heard. They would have a better'opportunity of recording their vote and of expressing -their opinions if we waited -until their return. (Applause.

Mr, R. A. Armstrong's Views. Mr. E. A. Armstrong said at' the outset that the present situation of the licensing question was the outcome of the political intrigue which had been going on for the years that the National Government had been in office. For much of this he blamed the National Government. The wheels of the political machine had never run more smoothly than when this Liquor Bill of 75 clauses was going through the House. The Bill was acceptable to the Prohibitionists and more or less ■• aeceptable to the trada. Nothing was said at any. time on ( behalf of the moderate section of the \ people, not only were politicians stampeded and forced to legislate according; to tho demands of extremists, but the' Prohibition Party even made use of the Government officials. At a meeting in Duneam, on January fr, the Kev; U. S. Gray, nresident of the New Zealand Alliance, had publicly boasted of thoir wonderful organisation, and that they had secured the insertion of a clause in tho Act providing for disfranchising electors under certain conditions, llr. Gray had been reported as saying: "They (.the Prohibitionists) had secured the insertion of this clause. They had intended to bring it before Mr Massny, but hearing that the registrar was a staunnh prohibitionist tliny had placed it before ihiin instead, with satisfactory results." The effect of this clause, said Mr. Armstrong, was that any electors who happened to have their addressee wrongly stated on tlie roll were liable lo lose their vote. The Rev. Mr. Gray had indicated the use the Prohibition Purty intended to make, nf (his c'-'ius" when ho had said, according to the "Otago Daily Times": "The workers (Prohibition) must also discover the attitude of all people on the roll who had not signed their petition, and lists containing the names of f Vse nronle would be provided." Tho Efficiency Board's report was little else than the usual prohibition advertisement, ' full of vague generalities ami speculative thp'irising about reductions of police; public charities, etc., that would follow prohibition. One point, however, the report was , fairly definite —it ?nid the brcml recommended, prohibition because "this view is supported by results obtained in oiir own country under conditional prohibition." As a consequence ho had made a careful invesf.Vition nf the conditions relating to crime in the no-license- areas. He hail based his calculations on an official report that had been laid before Parlimuent o.- the n-di".- nf Mr. 1.. M. Isitt, M.P.,-as representing the prohibitionists in the House. This disclosed the remarkable f"»t tli"' prime KPiicrallv was tr IT ..t-o V ;„ the no-license areas. For , all offences other 1 l)iin dninkp'ws th» pronnrtiwi per thousand population was, for. the n-lio 1 " Ttomi'iion. 31.5 dp- tlinnsmid, mid for the >")-IU'?"«e -ilislrict-i 32.2 wr thw.■eaml. The nvimi-tin:) fni- mpriipr in I'm-no-licensp district? was tlirpp t : irf-s -\-f»{ e.r Mian Hip whole P'-mi'-ira. Wmi-div-with intent wns nearly four times grater in H"> no.li("o'i.-"P i'lw?; r.tiip. tn'""l knowledge, incest, imlece-it assnult, i!logitimiicy, Infants Act, m'd ponuiy well , nil Ijrcater in proportion in the nolicense arens than in tlie w'>-ilp Domi""''— He had alsn (nken tho finmvs for t'ie No-Licen«e district of Ashburton in HIM and compared them with the surrounding "wet" electorates, • which were exactly, similar in characteristics, population, etc, It was the fairest comparison that

could possibly be maa , ?, .-md disclosed the fact that in the No-License district of Ashburton convictions for drunkenness were six times as many as in Ullesmere, twelve times as ninny us in Riccarton, five and a half times as many as in Uuriinui, twice as many •Iβ in Kuiapoi, almost twice as many as in Sehvyn, and 12} per cent, greater than Teniukn. Offences against the person, ngiinst property, and other offences were also greatly in excess in Ashburton. A further investigation had been made of a group of five "dry" districts in Otago and Southland as compared with five "wet" districts adjoining, and while the • "dry'/ groups showed less drunkenness, it showed 1376 convictions for other offences, as against only 821 in the "wet" group. These figure? completely exposed the fallacy of the Efficiency Board's report so far as local Prohibition was concerned, and as this was the only point upon which the hoard committed itself to anything definite, he hoped the people would take care to discount the airy generalisations which had been used to bolster up the Prohibition recommendation. i vote, of thanks was accorded to the speakers and to the chairman. It wrs announced at the beginning that no resolutions on the subject matter of the speeches would be accepted. |