THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 19786, 9 February 1928, Page 3

THE PROHIBITION MOVEMENT

POLITICS AND LICENSING ADDRESS BY MR C. R, EDMONDS Temperance supporters gathered in force last evening to listen to an address by Mr C. R. Edmonds, the general secretary of the New Zealand Alliance. The speaker took as his subject ‘ The Licensing Bill and Its Prospects.’ After reading a number of apologies for absence, Mr R. W. Hall, who was in the chair, welcomed Mr Edmonds to Dunedin, and explained to the audience the nature of his mission. Mr Edmonds opened his address by drawing attention to the fact that this was tho year of the licensing poll, and that he would like to start with message that the fight, was on. “Jn tact,” ho said, “it never stops. In the past it has been a sort of trench warfare, but it will not be so this time, for we will take the offensive. We have never had Prohibition here, and wo want to try it out. This year we hope that supporters of the liquor traffic will view the matter from the standpoint of its doing damage to the growing life of the dominion.” Before dealing with the present position in ■ politics, the speaker stated that prior to the last election and since then the Prime Minister had stated that the licensing legislation would bo considered on a non-party basis. When the New Zealand Alliance, in the form of a deputation, met the Prime Minister prior to the last poll, he stated definitely that a Licensing Bill would be introduced into the uew Parliament as a non-party measure After dealing with the Bill’s history at the last session, the speaker said that as far as the Alliance was concerned it was not invited in any way to confer with the Government on the qestion. The Alliance had stated quite definitely that it would not confer with representatives of the licensed trade, but that it was quite willing to discuss the matter with the Government. The Alliance again met the Prime Minister as a deputation in June, and urged him to bring down a Licensing Bill providing for the elimination of the third issue- -State Purchase and Control — from the ballot paper. Although the session commenced in June of last year, tho Bill was not introduced until November 8, and the second reading debate took place on November 15. There seemeo no evident reason why this extraordinary delay should have taken place, because it was admitted that licensing legislation was one of the most important matters which Parliament had to consider. It could only lie assumed that by the delay the interests of the liquor traffic were served, because the New Zealand Alliance seemed to be the only organisation which was pressing for the introduction ol the Bill. With reference to Hie extension ol time between the polls, the speaker staled that the proposal in the Bill of 1027 was that they should have a licensing poll every alternate general election. Under the present electoral law that would have meant a poll every three years, but if the life of Parliament were extended—and there was a definite move in that direction—then they might have eight or ten years between licensing polls. An extension of time between the polls would mean a direct gift to the trade ot an enormous sum ol money inasmuch as the price ot brewery spares would increase, and the goodwill of the licenses would bo increased pro rata to tbe extension of time.

The clause providing lui Hie elimination of Slate Control was quite in accordance with the policy ol the Alliance. hut ihe provision was rendered useless by the proposal in the hcxl clause, which staled that they should have,to secure 55 per cent, of the votes polled before they could carry Prohibition On the figures ol last poll this would mean a handicap of 07.5U1), which would be increased by some thousands at the next poll. The Bill contained oilier proposals which were concessions to the trade, and very little could be of benefit to that large "section ot voters (319,450) who at the last election stated by their votes that they wished tho licensed trade in alcoholic liquor abolished. After tracing further tho history of the Bill at, the last session, Mr Edmonds said that on the hist day of the session a deputation of the

“dry” members of the Reform Party waited on the Prime Minister, ami asked him to permit the Bill to he brought forward again next session, if not introduced by himself, then by a Minister of the Crown. Or, failing that, ho should give facilities for a private member to do so. it was then suggested that a caucus should be held in January in order that the party might discuss the question. So far there were no indications that the caucus would bo held at an early date, hut the Alliance was assured by its friends in the Government party that the question of licensing legislation must be an issue during the next session. The question had now become a larger one than merely a. licensing issue, for it had become a question as to whether the rights of the elected representatives of the people were to he made subservient to the desires of the Prime Minister on a matter of national importance, which by all leaders was' admitted to he of a nonparty nature. The Alliance had been accused of desiring to wreck the Government on this issue, but when it was remembered that thirty-two members of the Government Party voted for the Bill when it contained the proposal for a two-issue ballot paper with a bare majority, and twenty-one voted against it, it could ho seen that the matter was entirely in the hands of the Government Party. Since the close of the last session a great deal of comment had been made on the matter of a compromise on the question of a hare majority issue. Some friends of the Alliance wanted to know why it refused the per cent, proposal as suggested by the Legislative Council. In the first place, the basis of government to-day was by democratic vote—one elector, one vole, and all of equal value—and the Alliance failed to sec why this principle should not apply to the licensing referenda. In the second place, the numerical handicap in the proposal was far greater than that of the threeissue ballot paper. It was hoped that the question would ho settled during the coming session of Parliament. If not. the issue must be a vital one at tho next General Klection.

During the long drawn out controversy concerning majorities and the voting paper the pro-liquor advocates always had contended that the vote cast for State purchase and control was a liquor retention vote, and therefore a vote against Prohibition. The “compromise” at present advocated by some was for the Prohibitionists to get a. o2i per cent, vote to win. Because the Prohibition strength in the country had found expression in a demand for a dear-issue voting paper, it was claimed by the opponents of Prohibition that it would be a fair compromise to raise the present requisite vote from 50 per cent, up to 52 J per cent. After quoting the figures of the 1925 election the speaker stated that to have obtained a bare majority Prohibition would have required to win over 18,089 of the votes cast lor the other two issues. Under a S2-J-474. per cent. Prohibition would have had to win over 34,96 b of 'the votes. That was to say, a compromise such as suggested would be equivi'.ent, on the figures of last pof?, t an added requirci# nt of 16,877 votes to be won over. “This sort of thing is typical of the compromises which have been handed

by®

out to the anti-liquor voters,” declared Mr Edmonds, “and they have been swallowed, but not digested, by a well-meaning public, which, however, is not very astute. The liquor interests promote ‘ compromises ’ on the assumption that the body politic does not function in a healthy manner. Assuming that the vote for State Control would, if that issue were eliminated, go in part to Continuance and in part to Prohibition, then, on the last licensing poll figures, if two-thirds of 56,037 votes went to Continuance and one-third went to Prohibition, the result would he that Continuance would get 338,948 votes and Prohibition 338,129 votes. Under the present 50 per cent, provision Prohibition would thus have a majority of 1,181. Under a ‘ compromise ’ of 52.147j per cent. Prohibition would fall short of the requisite number of votes by 1(5.287. The greater the proportion of the present third-issue votes which went to Continuance the greater would be the ill-effect of the ‘ compromise ’; up to the point where if all present third-issue votes went to Continuance, Prohibition would bo 34,956 votes short—instead of 18,089 voles, as at present.” in conclusion, Mr Edmonds again reminded his audience of the coming elections, and mentioned that some 67,000 young people would this year he putting their -votes in the ballot box for the first time; lie wanted supporters of the. Alliance movement to realise the importance of winning over those young people. The speaker paid a tribute to the work of Mr Charles Todd and Mr Hilliker, who, he said, wore going through Central Otago next week to liven up the local workers. . On the motion of Mr F. W. Knight, seconded by Mr Ralph Harrison, Mr Edmonds was accorded a hearty vote of thanks.