The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL, 7, 1919. THE COMING LIQUOR POLL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 165, 7 April 1919, Page 6

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL, 7, 1919. THE COMING LIQUOR POLL

Though a plain enough issue has been put before the electors of the Dominion for decision next Thursday the- average elector who is , not a. prohibitionist or is not engaged in the liquor trade might well have doubts as to what he is really being asked to vote on. Day after day he is confronted with arguments and facts from the partisans of one side or the other which are so contradictory that he is liable to go to the poll more confused as to. the real merits of the issues at stake than when the campaign - started. It is our intention to endeavour to state the position as it appears to us, and as far as possible to clear away doubts and misunderstandings which may have arisen through exaggeration or misrepresentation. Toe issue "which has to be voted on is whether the sale of alcoholic liquor as a beverage shall be permitted to continue or whether the whole business shall be abolished, and those engaged in it be paid a sum not exceeding £4,500,000 by way of compensation. The poll has nothing to do with the sale of alcohol for medicinal use or the use of wine for sacramental purposes. If prohibition is carried alcohol will still be made available for use medicinally, and wine will still be made available, for use by (ho churches. The issue upon which the people arc asked to vote cannot be decided by the votes of the nrohibitionists or by the votes of those financially interested in the Trade. The decision will rest with the people who are neither prohibitionists nor dealers in liquor who hold the balance of power. These people are being asked to vote for a continuance of the traflie on a number of grounds which como under four main heads as follow: — (1) Because the prohibition of the sale of liquor is an interference with the liberty of the citizen to buy and consume fiquor. (2) Because; of the financial cost, to the community involved in the payment of 54.500.000 as compensation. (3)' Because the loss of revenue from Customs and excise <Uities on liquor, stated to amount to .Gl,2"0,00fl per annum, will necessitate extra taxation on something else. (A) Because the abolition of tho drhile traffic would not bring- the benefits claimed, but would load to the introduction of worso evils. These arc the main grounds on which the public are being urged to vote to continue the liquor traffic. Those who would abolish the drink traffic base their claims to support on national considerations. They would abolish the sale of liquor as a beverage (1) Because it. is n irivat social e%il, a cause of poverty, disease, and (.rime. (2) Because the drink traffic is a causo of waste and inefficiency. (3) Because the abolition of tho drink traffic would realise JM,500,C00 nt !''■'■ ' for investment in productive cltnnnels, wliich would benefit the whole community. Tt would itlsorclen.se for employment in productive work all the labour Represent engaged in the manufacture and sale of a product, wliich uo'ifers no benefit on the nation, lint on the contrary is the cause of widespread evils. (I) Because the cost of compensating the trade for going out of business and the loss of revenue will be more than met by the general increase in the nrodnction of wealth due to tho removal of the greatest cause of inefficiency and waste in our midst. That is to nay, on all grounds: social, economic, and moral the nation will bo llip b»tter oft for the abolition of the drink traffic. In weighing the ' merits of the facts and arguments brought forward by. the opposing parties in this struggle the dispassionate elector will no doubt be influenced by the knowledge that those who are fighting for continuance of the liquor trade are in the main those who are fighting for their own interests, whereas those who are seeking to abolish this traffic are fighting for what they conceive to bo the welfare of others and the general good of the nation. The forces of anti-liquor have nothing to gain personally beyond that benefit which they expect to accrue to every citizen from the abolition of a Traflie which they claim to be prejudicial to the best' interests of the great mass of the people. In the past the advantage which this position has given the prohibitionists has been discounted to some extent by a tendency in some quarters to regard prohibitionists as well-meaning extremists who take too little heed of tho practical side ■of the issues involved in the great social movement for which they are so zealously working. To-day that, handicap has been largely removed by the participation in the movement for the abolition of the liquor traffic of a large and influential body of business men, including some of the ablest and most sueces?" ful merchants and traders in the Dominion, who have joined in the crusade not on moral, but on economic grounds. They have thrown their weight into the scale because they regard the abolition of the drink traffic as a good business proposition from tho point of view of the whole Dominion. Now, whatever estimate the dispassionate doctor may be prepared to put on the opinions of the ordinary prohibitionist as to the economic effects of prohibition, the views of the non-prohibitionist business men of- the community who are supporting tho movement are, bound to command respect. And these views, as stated, indicate clearly enough that they consider that from the financial point of view the community need have no concern as to tho price it is proposed to pay for tho closing down of the liquor trade; but that on the contrary it will be a profitable transaction. As to where the money is to come from to pay .-64,500,000 in compensation to the liquor trade, the coun-

try could if it so desired pay this money by utilising n part of the £11,000,000 surplus revenue which has accumulated during the past three years. This surplus has been nursed by the Government in order to meet any unforseen war contingency which might arise. The war is now over, and a portion of this sum could, if Parliament so decided, be used as stated, and compensation thus be paid to the liquor trade out of the country's surplus profits without borrowing one penny pieee. As to to the necessity for extra taxation being imposed to meet the loss of revenue from Customs and excise duties on liquor. the average citizen, if he has given any attention at all to the case made out by those who support the abolition of the drink traflie on the grounds of national efficiency is not likely to have any uneasiness on this score.

But though the financial objections raised to prohibition have been greatly magnified, and can ba satisfactorily answered, there is still a large body of opinion in the country outside of the liquor trade felt which regards prohibition as an extreme and unnecessary measure. These people, generally speaking, have no sympathy with the liquor trade as at present conducted. They have no illusions blinding them to its influence for Rvil, they would not hesitate to vote out the present liquor system altogether, but they would <lo so only in order to replace it with some other system, undei , which liquor could be nrociired, but the sale of liquor for profit eliminated. They argue, and there is much to be said in support of their view that oiio, of the greatest, if not the chief of the causes of the evils arising out of the liquor trade is to be found in the fact that the sale of liquor is carried on merely as a profit-malting business, and in consequence every possible temptation is put forward to draw custom and to encourage drinking. These Reformers would abolish the sale of liquor for profit bv taking the business out of the hands of private, individuals and companies and placing i>. in the hands of the The idea, of course, is that the State would merely snpnly tlvj legitimate requirements of the public, for alcoholic' refreshment without attempting to force the sale: that the liquor sold would be of bettor quality; an,d the temptation to swell th« profits not being an influence with those conducting these State hotels, drinking to excess would be materially lessened, and the whole business claced on a satisfactory footing. An experiment in State control was tried in Engl.wl during the war, and was attended with a good deal of success, and this is pointed to as an argument in favour of the reform of tb« liquor trade in preference to its abolition.

There is no doubt that the view of tin: Reformers as distinct from the Abolitionists will find a good deal of support. The greatest handicap they arc faced' with is fcliO; difficulty which has been experienced the world over in securing any veal "measure of reform in connection with the liquor trade. The Liquor Trade has always exercised an influence in politics quite disproportionate to its numerical strength, and the fact that it has received its death-blow in America, and that its existence is threatened in jN'cw Zealand to-day is largely attributable to the circumstance that it has for so long succeeded in resisting those reforms which would have placed it on a more satisfactory footing, and so given less ground for the ver\; general antagonism which it has aroused even amongst those who are not antiliquor. A New York writer opposed to prohibition summed up the position very well when reviewing the recent decision of the United States to go "dry." He did not behove that the great bulk of the people wanted prohibition, but, to quote his words: "All the enemies of the Bum Demon are wholehearted, relentless, utterly convinced, zealous, bitter enemieswhile most of the friends of the Hum Demon arc also enemies of the Hum Demon." To many electors this question of reform as an alternative to prohibition is no doubt a perplexing one. There arc few people to-day outside of the liquor trade itself who do not hold the view that the trade, as at present conducted is a source of much evil, and that it should be either thoroughly reformed or abolished. The outcome of the poll on Thursday next will, we believe, depend mainly on the way in which those who in the past have favoured reform in preference to prohibition now decide to vote. The liquor trade will have only itself to blame if the scale, is turned against it by the votes of those who are not antiliquor, but who prefer even prohibition to a continuance of the existing state of things.