THE COMING LIQUOR BILL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 166, 8 April 1919, Page 8

THE COMING LIQUOR BILL

Sir,—Your judicial and dispassionate leading article strikes the note that is doubtless needed amid the strife of the contending parties. Your analysis of the motives'impelling the trade onono hand and the prohibitionists on the other is impressive, but you have left the case unfinished. It was not to lie expected that you could devoto more space in one issue. ] suggest, however, that merely to point out that Stale control is absolution which will appeal to many of the electors, without indicating what the experiment retilly means is to leave your presentation of the case in a very unfinished state. .Mav 1 ask that you will explain what the cost of State 'purchase and control vould be? It is stated that there is no limit in the Act to the amount to be paid either for goodwill or the properties, ond tluit the total amount therefore may reach even .£15,000,000. Is there any guarantee that this would not bj so? '

Would you, also, state whether in your opinion it is necessary for the State to embark on a gamble in hotel properties? Would it not be better to pay the .£1.500,000 now, get rid of the "trade," give prohibition a fair trial; and then if it failed, frame a State control policy without the embarrassment of the pietent hotels or hotelkeepcrs. It is possible that,. on the whole, a higher type (■f Civil Servant could bo found.

It would be of benefit, also, I think, if you would make clear the conditions on which the vote would be taken at the genera] election. Is it true, for instance, that the trade would have three ihances to one against prohibition; one if tliev carried State control; one if they carried continuance; and one if no issue at all is carried, since continuance would go on as at present?—l am, etc.. ELECTOR. April 7, 1919. [Should Continuance be carried at the poll on Thursday next, and State Control be. carried at the poll following the couiitrv would be committed to an expenditure estimated at from .£10,000,000 to A' 20,000,000. There is no limit fixed to the amount which must be paid by way of compensation to those engaged in the liquor- trade in the event of Stlite Control being carritvl. The idea of using Prohibition as a stepping-stone to State Control is not a ne<v one. It might prove a cheaper road to State Control than by way of Continuance, but it has the drawback that as the law stands it is not. possible. As to the third • point raised bv our correspondent, that is as to the conditions under which the next poll will bo taken on the three issues—Prohibition. State Control, and Continuance, there is no doubt that, the liquor trade 'fas been given a matert.il advantage. The position has been explained often enough. The elector who votes either for State Control or for Prohibition hae ralv one chance of winning: that is by securing a majority of the total votes polled for the issue he favours. The elector who votes for Continuance, however, has two chances. Continuance wins if it secures a majority of the total votes polled, but it also wins if a majoritv is not secured for either of the other two issues. In other words, Continuance can win on a minority vote as well as on a majority vote, while State Control and Prohibition can only win if either fecure a -majority of the votes polled. In (he circumstances, with three issues to split the votes, it is obvious that the. chances are all in favour of ConHmiance. To give all an equal chance the voting should be taken under the Preferential Vote system.]