THE LIQUOR BATTLE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 161, 2 April 1919, Page 3

THE LIQUOR BATTLE

MR. W. D. LYSNAR'S ADDRESS HIS DOUBTS ABOUT NO-LICENSE / (Extended Report, Published by Arrangement.)

Mr. : Av\ Douglas Lysnar, of Gisborne, addressed a public meeting in tho Town Hall-last night on the liquor question. He spoke as an opponent of prohibition. The chair was taken by Councillor L. Mlvenzie. The attendance was moderately large. The chairman briefly introduced Mr. Lysnar, who was present, he said, simply as a citizen. Mr. Lysnar did not represent either side in tho liquor controversy, and was paying all his own expenses. He was known already as a man who had done good work in exposing somti of the machinations of the Moat Trust. Ha would answer questions at the doss of his speech. Mr. Lysnar said he had come that evening to discuss tho most- dangerous Bocial question that faced the people of New Zealand. He hailed from a part of the Dominion that recently had been most seriously threatened with the carrying of prohibition. He took second place to nobody in -his concern for tho welfare of the people, and when prohibition threatened his own district he decided to investigate the proposition thoroughly and see where the truth lay. After looking into tho licensing question he had no hesitation- in saying that prohibition was wrong. If prohibition would remove the evils of drink, he admitted that it would bo a good thing. But prohibition would not remove the evils of drink. It would intensify them. He felt that it was difficult to get_ the truth about the liquor question. Some of the extreme prohibitionists were his own personal friends, and he esteemed and respected them very much. But they would not accept his views and arguments on tho liquor question'., They had made up their minds in a definite direction, and could not see the other side of. the case. They thought prohibition was the one panacea for the drink question, and simply seized upon every argument' in favour of no-license without seeing facts on the other side- He had felt it his duty as a citizen to como forward and discuss the position. The prohibitionists had not stuck to their principles. They had come forward with a new-born scheme that rodo counter to oil their old ideas. He had no sympathy with the drunkard, who was a callous, indifferent, cold-hearted being. A voice: Tho prohibition .party, has. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lysnar: ■ They have the wrong sort of sympathy. If you vote no-li-cense you are going to turn those poor men into criminals. He had done «s much as. any other man in New Zealand to secure the application of remedial measures' to the liquor traffic' He had written in 1902 a pamphlet dealing with tho liquor question, and had made several suggestions. One had been thnt the monopoly in the sale of liquor should bo broken, and the future issue of licenses entrusted to the. Magistrates and the police, with a provision that the people should have tho right to cancel all licenses. Ho had . proposed that women should not be employed in bars, and that liquor should not bo served to youths under twenty-one years of ago. Some of the reforms he had suggested had since, been adopted, aiid some had hot.. In order-to get those reforms he liad twice written to .every member, of Parliament.A voice: Tho law is -hot, carried.out.

Mr. Lysnar: It is fairly weU carried out. The law will never lie carried out exactly. - Ho did not propose to address himself to the extremists on either side. He blamed the extreme prohibitionists for a great deal of tho information and data that had created false impressions, in the minds of many people. Ho had a great deal of sympathy with u.any people who were earnestly convinced that prohibition was right,'because they had accepted .without question the information that had been put before Hi cm; He did not blamo these people, but he wouW show that.the data' on which-they based their opinions 'was wrorijj. '•'■ Prohibition would not achieve the 'results that gome people believed it would. It would simply intensify the evils of the trade. ■ Ho deplored the turmoil of a licensing.contest. It was not right (hat tho trouble should be caused in war time, but the Efficiency Board and the Government had to bear the blame. He had" never attached much importance to that report. Four of ■ the members of the board were prohibitionists. He had been told that the fifth member, Mr. Frostick, was also a prohibitionist.

A voice: No. Mr. Hunt was not a prohibitionist.

Mr. Lysnar: Mr. Hunt has been.a proh'ibitionist for twenty or' thirty yeais. I made inquiries in his own district. The Government might as well have.asked, Mr. Massey and three of his supporters, or Sir Joseph AVard and three of his supporters, to say which party should rule New Zealand. The decision would never be in doubt. The Government was to blame for putting these prohibitionists in a position to make such recommendations. The Eev. li. S. Gray had said, in Gisborne that the whole burden of the, legislation now in operation had rested on his shoulders, with tho advice of Mr. Hunt. A voice: What Tot! ■ Mr. Lysnar said he had heard the statement made. He quoted portions of tho Efficiency Board's report. The board, ho said, had not faced tho -real (point, ■which was whether or not national prohibition would remove tho evils associated with, liquor, The members had simply assumed that prohibition 'would have tho result they wished to obtain. He challenged tho assumption that prohibition had been a success when tried in Now Zealand and elsewhere. The passing of the present law had been a branch of faith with tho electors of New Zealand. The members of Parliament had been pledged to leave liquor legislation alono during the life of tho present Parliament. Tho members should not have disregarded that undertaking. Six o'clock closing and anti-shouting had been introduced by means of war regulations, and wero claimed to be war measures. But the now licensing law was an entirely different matter. Anti-shouting was already a dead letter from ono end of Now Zealand to the other. Mr. Lysnar said that the anti-shouting law had become an.absolute farce, ..and so would total prohibition. Tho results would be exactly tho same. Ho was sure about that. . . A voice: Wo livo to learn. The Soldiers' Vote. Mr. Lysnar: No. Wo livo lo profit by the experience of others. Tho peoples and nations that will hot. do that will not progress. It seemed to him that tho legislation .was the result of a compromise between the extfemo prohibitionists and the publicans. What right had these people to compromise the general public?- Tho rights of tho peoplo had been absolutely disregarded. Exactly the same thing bad~napponed' in tho United States, where tho Republican Party avd tho publicans had carried the so-called" prohibition law. without tho consent of the people. Ho felt strongly that the Parliament of New Zealand had no right to'force through tho new licensing law in tho faco of the understanding at. last election and in tho alisonce of the soldiers. (Applause.) Tho Rev. R. S. Gray, a champion of tho prohibition cause had said at Gisborne that the soldiers had the right to re-shape this .country when they, came back. They had saved the Empire ,from German domination. That was a proper sentiment, and if Mr. Gray acted up to his words lie could not ask tho. people to vote for prohibition on April 10. Tho soldiers wero entitled to be here to take part in the discussion on the liquor question before the final decision was reached.

A voice: They will all have thoir votes. Mr. Lvsnar: That remains to bo seen. He claimed that Mr. Gray had no right to force tho issue on with Buch indecent haste. Tho New Zealand Alliance had said in a pnmphl?t that it w'as imperative to have the liquor traffic ended before tho close of tho war, and that tho compromise had been accepted only in order to end tho traffic at once. _ How could the soldiers take any part in the fight? . , ~,.•; ,A voice: They have their votes.

>Mr. Lysnar: They ore eutitled to moro than that. They aro entitled to como on tho platform hero and discuss the question. AVo havo rend in the newspapers during,the last few days that a section of tho soldiers, 1 do not know just how ii'any, have been, disfranchised. They are returned soldiers without voles. A voice:-. That is not the Rev. K. »• Gray's fault. ■~„,, Mr. Lysnar: Yea it is. It is his fault because he is forcing this issue on. Ho had mado a condition that the- decision must be mado at once, and tho Government has submitted to tho arrangement made by tho New Zealand Alliance and the- liquor party. Mr. Lysnar contended that the rights of tho soldiers had not been fully protected under the law. Tho Act under which tho poll was being taken provided that tho poll should not be invalid because soldiers' voles were unable to be counted. Tho Act obviously did not give full protection to the soldiers. There was no certainty that soldiers' votes would be coTinted, f.nd l.e had learned i to be suspicious about these things. The tactics of both sides justified suspicion. AVheh his own clergyman would deny tho truth, he became suspicious. Each side would tako advantage of any opportunity to gain a point. The public should understand that every person who aided and abetted a breach of the prohibition law was going to bo regarded as a criminal. The man who sold, manufactured or .bought drink illicitly was going to be treated as a criminal. Was it right to drive tho drunkard into the ranks of the felons? 'the law was going to force the drunkard to be a felon in order to secure, liquor. He would be down and hopeless. "Those of you who wish to save your male friends from this position will think twice at the polling booth if you understand that position," said Mr.'Lysnar. "Before you go into that ballot-box to record your votes you will think, 'Am I going to force these people into the-position of being felons and criminals?'"He ™ not ashamed to say that a close relative of his own had fallen through drink, dost his splendid prospects' through drink, but he had gone to the front and fought the Germans. If he came hack with sufficient power to restrain himself ho would take a man's place in the world again, but that was his only hope. If the law remained as it was he might become a criminal. No-license was worse than the evils it sought to remove. It was immoral and ungodly! A voice: AVhy is it ungodly?

Mr. Lysnar: "Because it begets worse evils than drunkenness, and God knows they are bad enough. It makes men criminnls. Temperance and Prohibition. Mr. Lysnar said thai all the arguments against liquor were arguments for temperance, but not for ]-rohibition. Thero were two parties interested in the question—the men behind tho bar and tho men in front of it. It was possible to remove the men behind the bar, but not the thirst of the men in front of it. A voice: Cold water. ' Mr. Lysnar: Cold water won't do it. A-.voice:. Close tho doors. - Mr. Lysnar said that this would not succeed. He told of how a- friend of his had cautioned him that the trado was liko a serpent, and "You can't stop it biting." A voice: Kill it. (Applause.) Mr. Lysnar: "You can't, kill it. If you want to do that you will have to ; kill ■yourselves." Anyone could make liquor, he.said, even out of sawdust. 'He declared that the inebriates on Roto Eoa Island- had, under the very eyes of the guard, made liquor out of surplus turnips from the garden! It was so very easj'j'.he insisted, to make alcohol that the making of it could never be prevented by any policemen. , Rights of Minorities. Even to a majority he would say, he continued, that they had no right to say to him: "You shall not drink." It' would be just as right for the drinkers to say to the prohibitionists: "You shall drink whisky." The one would be as fair as the other.. fCries of, "No.") His point was that the people could not vote a. man "dry," and unless this could be done they were going to make bad worse. A voice: Yon haven't tried it. Mr. Lysnar: That is so, but why 6hould we be the football of the world? .Someone suggested- that Canada and the--States.had tried it.- ......-:•. ~ I\[t. Lysnar. said" that 'there was'!' less drunkenness- in New 'Zealand than in Canada and America. New Zealand was cue of the soberest places on the earth. He declared that prohibition would not prohibit. It would ' instead breed a class of'"sneaks, perjurors, and other criminals, : aiders and abettors of slygrog setting and smuggling." This was the little list, they were askod to accept with prohobition. Who Asks for It? Who was asking the people to do this thing? There were three sets of people asking for it—(ho. Church, the people wlio.made (heir living out of if, and the people prompted by a spirit of revenge. A voice: And the mothers and fathers. {Applause.)

Mr. Lysnar: No; the mothers nnd fathers come after,.and it is to help the mothers that I am here to-night. (Unghter.) This is no laughing'mntter. There will bo many mothers who wilt not laugh at this matter, but who will waigli it in their own way A voice: And'strike out. the toD line. ■ Mr. Lysnar: "No, they won't strike out llip fnp line. They will vote against proliition." He would issue a \ aruing to the people lo see that their Clmrcho" did notenter into political questions. The function of the Churches was "to preach the Gospel," and the Churches should be kept to this purpose. Ministers were r.ot the sort of men to give sound advice to the people on political questions. They were too sympathetic, and they had rot the business knowledge. Parsons, if they succeeded in stopping (he drink, would at once set to work to prevent peoplo (joins to raco3, to prevent them smoking. On thin? would lead to another. Tlia people of New Zealand did not. want outside advice on this matter. They had enough brains to settle it for themselves. The people did not need the assistance of American visitor to coma to a right conclusion on this question. A voice: We want them to come hei'6 anl tell us the facts of their experience.

!s Prohibition Effective? Mr. Lysnar went on to elaborate his point that prohibition would not prohibit. He told of a cast in. America where "a man who was charged with tho duty of dispensing liquor for medicinal purposes in a "dry" area was arrested for sly gro£-.<ielling. Ho had been bringing liquor into tho town by tho truckload. This man, he said, had been associated with Mr. W. D. Bayiey as scrutineer for the soldiers' votes in tho Canadian referendum. .'Mr. Bayiey, against whom be had no. thing to say, was & paid lecturer. A voice: So are you. Mr. Lysnar declared that he had never received anything in money or in kind for his services except once, when lie had received a small presentation from the no-license party in Gisborne for his jood work in conncctbn with the reform of tho liquor trade. Ho went on to I refer to Mr. Barley again, reminding ] the audience of soma words used by this gentleman at the Methodist Conference ir. Christchurcb about Bolshevism. Mr. Lysnar declared that prohibition was, in his opinion,, a stepping-stone to Bolshevism. Wo could certainly never get sober peoplo hero by prohibition, however desirable it might be to havo a sobor people. With reference to Father Cronin, ho quoted part of the circular letter sent out by Bishop Brodie relating io Father Cronin's actions, Father Cronin had wrongly represented Cardinal Manning as a prohibitionist. Cardiuul Manning had been an abstainer, but he had declared emphatically against prohibition. At tho invitation of a man in the audience be made reference to Bishop Julius. He held a letter from Bishop Julius dated 1800. . A voice: Give us something modern, Mr. Lysnar: That's only ten years ago, A voice: Twenty'years. Mr. Lysnar: "And teeing that prohibition has been going for about fifty years I think ten years ago Js modern," Bishop Julius, he continued, had written in his letter:—"l think colonial prohibition unnecessary and undesirable," but since then Bishop Julius had "taken on this prohibition." Clause 9, , In 1903 the Prohibition Party -would h«v« nothing to do with the notorious

Clauso 9 uf Mr. Seddoiv's Licensing Dill oi : that year. lie quoted the alliance manifesto on that clause made <it the time. ill'. Seddon had proposed "no licenso, no liquor' I —exactly what was ! proposed at tho poll next week. The alliance proper wcro ignoring their former manifesto, but were going baldheaded for what tliey had declared in 1003 was contrary to British justice. Air. Lysnar told of a' visit he had made' to Balclntha to consult with a man about prohibition. When lie arrived at tho town ho found that tho man had been arrested for sly grog-selling. But the fellow got out of it by saying that his wife did tho selling. Tlie result was that the wife was fined JUO. But, Mr. Lysnar said, he refused to believe that the man got no profit out of Urn sale of the liquor. When ho said this in a .meeting in Gisborne a man who had worked at Balclntha denied that the man in the case had derived any profit. But this witness had sent him a postcard after the meeting, in which he said:—"Since arriving home I find that I made a mistake in stating that Mr. made no profit on the sale of liquor. I hasten to correct that, and apologise."

Enough Questions on Hand. The British Cabinet had asked the I United States Government not to give j passports to any prohibition advocates to visit any part of the British domin- > ions. This was a very important decision, but the reason for it was quite clear. The reason was that there.wen l such a large number of other urgent questions facing the people. All the soldiers were coming home, and tho chief task Was to settle all these soldiers again in civil life. AVas this task to be made more difficult by turning out of employment all the workers in tho breweries and the persons otherwise employed in the distribution ol liquor? (Laughter.) Position in tho United States, Prohibition in the United States had been a failure. AVhere there had been one licensed house before, thero wore now hundreds of sly giog-siiops. There was just as much liquor consumed as ever, but the quality was worse and the price was higher. A voice: AVhat do you want to squeal about no-license for, then?

Mr. Lysnar: "Under license the liquor is sold innocently. That is.the point." America's consumption of alcohol was tar creator tiiaii iNcw Zealand's consumption, although half the United States was nominally dry. He had said in Gishorne that if the prohibitionists could show him that under no-licensco .the consumption of liquor would decrease, he wonld not oppose the change, Mi! fie might aid it. Aninvestigation was • made by arbitrators alter the prohibitionists had accepted his challenge, and the result had been a duly authenticated document showing that more liquor was consumed in Invercargill in two years under no-license than in tho last "two years of license The fact was that prohibition did not decrease drinking. The Invercargill Customs returns for. two years before no-license was carried showed a total of 325,755 gallons, and for two years under prohibition the total was 366,491 gallons. In addition there was an unknown quantity of liquor taken into Invercargill in small quantities. He was not going to discuss the financial aspect, because that was beside the question if the cancellation of licenses was a sooial change for tho better. Evidence could .bo brought to show that prohibition was a, blight. Mr. Lysnar said that no-license had not been effective in the Native areas of the Gisbbrne district. The Natives got ( drunk, and these were many disgraceful scenes. He quoted the ease of a,Native who, while under the influence of drink, assaulted a. constable in a rio-liecnse area. Young men were going wrong in the nolicense districts. Prohibition was making these young men criminals.

A voice: Booze is doing it. Mr. Lysnar, who was being subjected to many interruptions, quoted tho views of people who had said, after experience in America, that effective prohibition was ■< impossible.- Prohibition meant bad liquor, served in bad. surroundings; and ho did not believe thoughtful parents would wish their boys. to get liquor under such conditions. Mr. Lvsnar said that if prohibition was carried lie would lay in a good stock of beer. A man was allowed to put. in a stock of beer or whisky, and ho would lay in a stock. That was the way prohibition! operated. _It penalised, most of all the poor man who could not "afford "to buy whisky in quantities, He told of another instance of slg grogselling, in which a woman had supplied wliiskv. to a customer from a bottle of whisky which she carried hidden under her petticoat! Solf^Relianco. He put it that the proper aim of the law should be to teach people self-reli-ance and ielf-restraint. A woman hi the' audience said something inaudible at this stage, and there was a mild tumult. When the noise-sub-sided the lady was allowed to speak, and she said: "God forgive you for sticking up for the drink, for it has been tho curse of niy home."

Mr. Lysnar: I don't'for one moment question that what that lady says is true, but, lady, the' question is this: Ate Xou going to improve this condition by having prohibition? The lady: Yes, and I will tell you Why. My husband has always been a gentleman to me when he is sober. It is only -when he is in drink that be is anything else. . • . Mr. Lysnar: J entirely sympathise with the lady, but I want to tell her ana tell everybody else that by no-license yon will not improve that, but intensify it. The man is simply a drunkard to-day; no-license will make him a criminal. A voice: Have you ro heart at all? Total prohibition had not been tried in Canada or the United States. It had been tried in Russia. What was the position there to-day. The Tsar, who made that edict, had been wiped off the face of the earth. (Internption.) 'Die prohibition lnw in the United States was causing seething discontent, and there was no saying where the trouble would end. Peoplo were going to resist it. Mr. Lysnar referred' to the medicinal value of alcohol, and said the doctors considered that liquor had. saved lives during the epidemic. New Zealand would be In a bad position if the influenza came again and there was no liquor to be seci'red. It would not be practicable to get a medical certificate in each case. He quoted Biblical authorities "to show that prohibition is contrary to the Divine order." The number of drunkards in New Zealand was not nearly as targe as had be-on represented. The figures quoted by the prohibitionists did not allow for the men who had multiplo convictions for drunkenness. The prohibitionists magnified the evils of drink, and they wero utterly unreasonable in asking that New Zealand should try the experiment of abolition of liquor. He appealed to the peoplo not io vote prohibition on April 10 without very earnest consideration. For the good of the children tlift people should vote for continuance. Mr. Lysnar spoke for nearly two hours and a half. Ho was subjected to almost continuous interruption towards the close of his remarks.

In answer to questions Mr. Lysna? said the available evidenco went to show that prohibition would increase tho demnod for gaols, asylums, and cjioritablo institutions.' Prohibition, would increaso tho expenditure on liquor, becauso tho liquor would cost more. Mr. Lysnar answered questions till 10.40 p.m., and tho meeting then closed with a vote of thanks. to the speaker.