THE LIQUOR POLL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 235, 30 June 1919, Page 6

THE LIQUOR POLL

Sir-11l an interview appearing iu your journal to-dav the Rev. R. S. Giaj, gnniser of the. New Zealand states that a large part of the «oWieis vote "was cast under misapprehension deliberately manufactured and fostered by the other side," and proceeds to link uo the Moderate League with tins general statement by certain remarks oil a circular letter addressed br the league to all soldiers overseas at the time of thereferendum. It is necessary that the public should know that for several i>sues prior to the poll the soldiers paper, "The New Zealander." was swamped with prohibition advertisements intended if possible to sway the soldiers § vote, The Moderate League's activity in this respect wiis confined to one simple and ftraicfhtforward loiter only, setting forth the true position in relation to the new licensing law and the effect of . the ■ Cl T;ie ßl llev"°Srav-s assertion resardms the soldiers' votes heinjj influenced by misrepresentation is sitnplv another of the lively insults tint h's party have seen {H to hnvl el the c°ldiers. He says. The prohibition t party is finite sure that the voting of the .«oldiois does not really represent the opinion of the soldiers on the srrent issue raised by the Tlflicieney Jina'd.' Does the I'ev. Gray dare to assert that these 'lien were «o weak-willed a« to be swayed by partisan propaganda, or that thev voted otherwise ihan by c'uivcUoii and in accordance with wha' they believed to be the best for tho country that they had risked <ill to defend? It

is safe to say that the propaganda of cither the Moderate League, the prohibition party, or the trade would have but little effect upon the soldiers, and that their overwhelming decision against prohi'ijitiou was guided by their natural manliness and common sense, supplemented by the broadening of outlook gained on service in the Older World. The Kev. Gray is attempting the impossible when he tries to explain away the soldiers' vote. It stands emblazoned on the official records of this country as the opinion of the best manhood of New Zealand regarding tho liquor question, and no sophistry can discount it or destroy it. If, however, impulse were to be credited in any way for the solidity of the soldiers' vote against prohibition, those who know the men best would probably advance the suggestion that they resented the attempt that was being nude during their absence to limit personal liberty in the country to which, as war-weary veterans, they were returning heme to enjoy the freedom of civilian life again. The Bev. Gray definitely challenges some of .the statements contained in the Moderate League's letter to the soldiers; but first expresses surprise that no mention was made of the National Efficiency Board, "with which body," he says, "the proposal for the special poll originated." It is sufficient to repeat what Ihe league has always held; viz., that the gentlemen who composed the Efficiency Board were prohibitionists before they wero appointed to the board, and Mr. Gray must think the New Zealand public very gullible if he exnecls them to l>elieve that tile New Zealand Alliance were not anxious to secura a. special poll and did not actively agitate and scheme to that end. As a matter of fact, in their speeches during the campaign the prohibitionists openly'stated that their only reason for accepting the

"compensation" clauses of the Licensing Bill was so that they could get an immediate poll at a time which they considered, in the words of Sir. "W. D. Hunt, "the chance of a lifetime." The Rev. Gray has only to turn up the newspaper reports of his own meetings to seo this in black and white. would appear that the whole business of the Efficiency Board's investigation, its report and the special referendum, was just another of those little schemes of mice and men that "gang aft agley."

Referring to the passage in the league's letter which mentioned the fact that the prohibitionists during the war, had "never ceased their agitation and have boldly proclaimed their propaganda to 1m of more, importance to the> war," ilr. Gray says. "These statements are contrary to fact." Yet. a sentence or twa further on he proceeds to admit that he is not prepared to say that no individual , prohibitionist .expressed certain opinions. This disingenuous attempt to separato the prohibition party from those who 6pea.k for it wi-U lie apparent to every, one; but to pin this question down to the official organisation, let a. quotation be taken from the resolution of the prohibition party when, on the outbreak of war in 1914, in the of internal unity; a suggestion of. a truce on the liquor question was made by this league. In the course of their manifesto the prohibition party said: "Ours is not only a patriotic but a moral movement, and as impossiblo for us to discontinue tlie work of reform as it would be for the Churches to close ■ their doors and ceaso to preach the Gospol because the nation is at war. .. . . We are in every way serving the country and the Empire best by continuing to uso all lawful means to bring the traffic to an end. . . . Strong drink is New Zealand's greatest enemy, and probably kills over a thousand persons in this laud every year" (vide "Ly.ttelton Times," August 20, 1914)'. Mr. Gray describes as a "falsity" the league's refereuoe to tho prohibitionist accusations of drunkenness, against our soldiers. He can find plenty, of proof of the league's truthfulness on this matter by turning up the reports of the speeches of prohibition lecturers during the 1914 campaign. If he turns to the reports of the speeches of the representatives of the prohibition party in' Parliament during tho early closing debates he will find plenty more. The public have not forgotten the prohibitionist committees that haunted Lambton Station at the times of the departure of troop trains, and whose wretched aspersions on the character of tho soldiers were completely refuted by ✓those broad-minded M.P.'s who made it their business to personally investigate the question. If lio wants further proof let him . turn up the report of the following instances: Prohibition deputation to Minister of Education, May 25, 1015; Methodist Conference resolution asking for prohibition of soldiers in uniform, February 24, 1915; similar resolution of the W.C.T.U., March 23. 1915; similar resolution of the D.unedin -Presbytery, May 5, 1915; speech of the Rev. Scorgie in Dunedin, May 5, 1915, in which lie said that because of the. drunkenness of the soldiers tho rolls of honour would soon become "rolls of dishonour," and suggested that men found taking liquor iuto camp "should be stripped and flogged" (vide "Otago Daily Times," May 5, 1915). ' ITie Rev. Gray describes with an unmentionable word the statement of the 'league that the prohibition party had. "taken no steps whatever to secure the soldiers' vote," and states that they passed a resolution at the time;o.f adopting the Efficiency Board's proposal. The . official report of their deliberations at ' that time, apparently handed by them to the Press and appearing in the Wellington papers ot* April 9 and 10, 1918, contains no reference' .whatever to the soldiers' right to vote, and it was because of this that the Moderate League immediately made representations to the Government that if any poll were contemplated the right of every soldier both within and outside the Dominion must l be carefully protected (vide Wellington papers April 11, 1918). In any case the mere passing of a resolution and the mouthing.' of platitudes from the platform would' be no justification for the contention of the Rev. Mr. Gray. The gravamen of the Moderate League's charge is embalmed in sub-section 3 of section 12 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1918, which provided that it did not matter whether the vote of the soldiers was taken at nil, or if taken whether it was counted or not, or what gross irregularities might occur to destroy their franchise it would pot affect the result of t.he poll as taken in New Zealand. Chiefly as a result of the exposure of this iniquitous and sinister provision made from end to end of the Dominion by the Moderate Leoguo the authorities were stirred to ta,king extra pains to secure the votes of the soldiers with'the result that is so distasteful to the Rev. -Mr. Gray and his parly. The fact remains, however, that the law gave no protection to the soldier, and for this the league holds the prohibitionists and their friends in authority wholly responsible. •

If the Rev. Mr. Gray wants anv proof of the league's statements that the prohibitionists were pressing for a vote before the soldier came back lit can turn up the report of his own speech in Hie Wellington' Town Hall on August 9, 1918, when lie said:—"Let lis have this menace out of the road and the path cleared before the boys come home." Also tha speech of Mr. L. M. Isitt, M.P., in Auckland July 29. 191S, and of Mrs. Don in Dunedin on July 31. 191 S. The whole tenor of the prohibitionist speeches was to secure "a vote before the soldiers returned, and the reports of their -meetings abound with instances. In Christcliurch in February last at the Presbyterian Assembly, Chaplain Burridge made the definite statement that the soldiers would not vote for prohibition, and that, therefore. if prohibition was to 'be carried the people must "go to the poll with a firm hand on April 10."

Having' answered seriatim the points raised by tlio Eev. Mr. Gray, it riow. cnly v remains to summarise his attack 'upon Hie Moderate League and his insulting reflections on the veracity of its principal officers by pointing out that it is only the "common subterfuge of defeated opponents. gnd is an linsporlsinnulike attempt to explain away the penuino thrashing administered to prohibition by the defenders of our national liberty aided by the moderate - citizens of the Dominion.—l am, etc., *1). It. FINDI,A.\, President N.Z. Moderate League.