LIQUOR QUESTION

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 44, 16 November 1926, Page 5

LIQUOR QUESTION

PROHIBITION IN AMERICA DEPUTATION TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY At yesterday’s meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly a deputation was received from the New Zealand Alliance with reference to the future of the movement to bring about prohibition of the liquor traffic in the Dominion

The speakers for the deputation were the secretary of the Alliance, Mr. T. R. Edmond, and Mr \V. D. Hunt, of Wellington. Mr. Edmond said the leaders of the temperance movement were quite prepared to accept any advice, or plan, that would help in atttaining the great objective, the extinction of the traffic. The criticism of the Assembly on the subject had been instructive, and would be accepted in the light it had been offered. They felt that the Presbyterian Church was going to fight harder than ever in 1928 for the cause. (Applause). Since last poll the’Alliance had been taking stock of the position, and was now developing an educational programme that was already having good results. The organisation was better to-day than it had been during the last five years. The Education Department was giving instruction in scientific temperance in the schools. Referring to the question of legislation, Mr. Edmond declared that the liquor Bill of last session was_ no use to the prohibition party. They had asked for a democratic ballot paper on the two issufes, but the Bill came down without it, and the party thereupon determined to fight. (Hear, hear.). In the present Parliament more than 50 per cent, of the members would be prepared to grant the two issue ballot paper if the Government gave them the chance to vote on the point, and pressure must be steadily exercised in that direction. (Applause). Mr. W. D. Hunt, who recently returned from an overseas tour, mentioned that he had been struck in America with the attention now being paid to the educational side of the question, and that was what had to be done in New Zealand, he rvas convinced. (Hear, hear.) The United States was at present enjoying immense prosperity, and leaders of industries were agreed that prohibition had had a great deal to do with it. (Applause.) While the law was being broken all over the place, however, ‘here was a great deal less liquor being drunk than before, and business men did not want to go back to the old state of things. A director of the Southern Pacific Railway Company, who stated that he was not a prohibitionist, and had always voted against it, mentioned that his company employed 90,000 men, and the latter were a very great deal better off than they had been in the days of liquor. Mr. Hunt added that while there was agreement amongst thinking people that prohibition had done immense good, there was a great difference of opinion as to the wisdom of having written the amendment into the Constitution, on the ground, that public opinion was not always in favour of the enforcement of amendments to the Constitution. The officers carrying out the law found a great deal of difficulty in that respect. They said it was a better policy to harass the bootleggers in every way possible (arresting them, letting them out, rearresting them again—making their lives a misery until tliev leave the practice off) rather than prosecute them in the ordinary way through the Law Courts. The officer in Chicago declared that he could not get convictions from the juries, and the general opinion now tvas that it was unwise to put the amendment into the Constitution. It was felt it would have been much better if they had gone on as before, carrying State after State, and district after district, bv the vdte of the people. Voters then felt it was their job, and if they did not like prohibition they could go.back to liquor. New Zealand should in future go on the same lines—put the issue before the people clearly, and let them vote liquor back if they wanted it. The funds must be spent not so much on politics as in educating the young people. (Applause.) Both speakers were thanked for their addresses.