WINE INDUSTRY.

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 234, 27 June 1919, Page 9

WINE INDUSTRY.

:- : .V"'- r* — - \. r:.:- ■■ . AND THE PROHIBITION'LAW'' v , A'PLEA,FOR EXEMPTION :' OPINIONS OF REV. R. S. GRAY '.' .The.' proposal- that in the interests, of their industry New Zealand-made wines' b ? 0I l, '■*'.-exempted-.from the operation ot the .New Zealand' Prohibition laws,' was niado'to the Parliamentary Indus-tries'-Commission ■by representatives of the New Zealand .Viticultural, Association in Auckland and Napier. . The committee yesterday'heard evidence to tho contrary effect from tie presideut of tho New Zealand Alliance.- - .The Rev. E, S. Gray, president of the! Now.Zealand Alliance, said that ho did' , not know-what view tho alliance would take of the matter, brat he presumed that the view of the alliance would coincide with .his own dpinion, which was that wine-growing .did:.not differ' from barley-growing or beer-making, ns an in- ' dustry. Both barley-growing and- beermaking were industries in which a great deal more capital was engaged than was engaged, in ..wine-growing. Until it could ; bo shown that the.use of wine had no;injurious 'effect on the "people ; the, mere fact that the production. of-wine: was a local.,:industry;, and .the;.mere;fact jthat the 'Government Had ..advanced, some mouev to fhe people, engaged in it,, would not .furnish.; s'ufflcipnt. reasons'for. ..the alliance "to make an exception v in favour • of wine. ....as ..against., other 'alcoholic liquors.'-It..was a well-known fact,,he ■'.Bind, - that.' in' some wine-drinking parts of (Europe''there werevvery heavy .drinking populations; and.{lie worst drunkards in. the; :world: ;.He did not .accept the proposition'..'that '-n-ine .'.drinking, should' be considered on a different plane from .tho'.drinking of/beer', and spirits. Tho attitude'- of the'' alliance would'.be that -.wine 'along with'other, lalcbholic liquors,'' should be'prohibited.' ■■';:■' ' To Mr.'Hudson: He was' aware • thait New 1 ■'Zealand wines' were" lighter thansome other per cent., of alcohol, ! rio believed. But liquor'of tllhjt strength would make a, nian "groggy « ■ho took enough "of it; It ■would not be ' possible for tlio alliance, in;the -middle .of, the' campaign, to', agree ;to'.'«hitng<s ot attitude oh this .question,' It State control should be. carrie«l;at the poll, then there would be. an opportunity. for-those. who .wanted light' ■■wines''and beers'to propose'.: it. '..:At : : present the proposal could iiqt be considered by- tho Prohibitionists.' /They were opposed'root and branch to. ihtoxitotingMiquorß,'.: lilcluaing within' that. cjitegoryevery-; beverage that ' , was intoxicating. ■', ' ''' ' , , .' Mr. Hudson: l r ou are not prepared;to consider a, compromise?; ■ \. ''■'■ Mr Gray: We can t'consider a chrnpiomise..noiv> 'lio provision tO Mr -Hudson:.l mean for'the .'future?,-. Mr Gray said that he had no idea what tho alliance might, decide in; future, on the question. The present opinion was that the country would: be. better without■! any liquor, that was intoxicating. - He inquired whether, the .emaamittee W*p€«d to recommend an. amendment of the law this session, because, 'as- lie said, unless th" laV were-amended 'the question was' wihout point, seeing that;.at present the Zpbskltd ■■•■he. submitted.;.™ thepro> hibltion of all' alcoholic -'liquors. ■. ■. ... The chairman (Mr. 'Wilkinson), said that the.committee did-nof propose: to •' make "such a''recommendation: •:■■. ■• - Mr Forbes- suggested ffiat .wine growing ■was flight .occupation,/suitable for reto help' the' returned 'soldiers;' out. ■the. ' argument that-this occupat on should)* spared because it. was suuab ! or .sol d ers was a specious one. One Might just as we rsuggeit'thathotel-toping «u asui able occupation for soldiers. It was. eS-than, wine growing-nothing. but.,V Kwal to be submitted to the people r October lie thought:-'As to ; norted declaration of President AYilson in ■ favour of ght. wines'.'and. beers, : it would, not "w poesiblo. -for "the" veto a prohibition law alreadr jmrtri., because that-law was made. by. taW;*; pornoraled in-.the, constitution of the 'Un&States. That change was: made m : ST constitution caV' fined- in the Constitution-by. l*Mg car Tied "by two-thirds 'majorities of both Housefof -the leKi^tu^a^thenrnt,. • fi'ed.bv three-quarters of . fli Mates. Actually. ; 4s-of- the ratified. To remove prohibition, from tho-constitution T similar piocediire would have to be followed -Possibly tlie.Pres.deii 's remarks in favour, of light wines and beers ™1 reference fo'the tfftr-tinie prohibition, enforced by other authority. .Constitutional prohibition ..would: come into.force in JaniW next.. Perhaps the *"»s?*■ miggested: that, in the meartime. instead: of absolute prohibition there {hould-te '■ this-partial prohibition. But the President' could not- interfere With the Constitution.' That was. beyond all question.