LABOUR VERSUS LIQUOR.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 3 August 1901, Page 4

LABOUR VERSUS LIQUOR.

(“ New Zealand Times.”)

The irresponsible T. E. Taylor has been propounding some extraordinary doctrines at Christchurch. Ho took advantage of a “ social” held in celebration of the election of Mr G. J. Smith to advocate a political alliance of workers and prohibitionists and the disfranchisement of every person connected in any way with the liquor trade. To the general body of the people it will seem perfectly reasonable that publicans, brewers and their employees should be disfranchised, on condition that the same rule is made applicable to prohibitionists. If that were done, there would be some hope of sane legislation being passed on the subject of the liquor trade, say on the lines of the recent resolution of the Anglican Synod in Wellington. But Mr Taylor’s proposal is a one-sided one; he wishes to “ sweep the polls ” -and carry prohibition I and if he succeeds in doing this, the unhappy people connected with the liquor trade would not only be deprived of votes, but would lose their means of livelihood as well. The attempt to pin down Mr Smith to approval of this benevolent scheme fortunately proved unsuccessful. Mr Smith counselled caution in making any attempt to identify prohibitionists with any political party, and refused to subscribe to Mr Taylor’s novel doctrines without deliberation. It goes almost without saying that no man of practical common sense will endorse these ideas. The attempt to amalgamate the labour and prohibition vote has been made over and over again in various parts of the country, and it has always signally failed. In some cases it came near wrecking the labour party as a serious political factor. The election just decided in Christchurch is a striking evidence of the futility of endeavouring to yoke a horse and an ass together—to reconcile two elements that can no more mix than oil with water. Mr Charles Taylor, one of the defeated candidates, ran on extreme labour and prohibition lines, and was beaten by Mr Smith, whose prohibition is of the modified kind, and who, as an employer of labour, cannot be expected to be an out-and-out advocate of the workers’ interests as against those of the employers, Mr T. E. Taylor’s dream of “sweeping the poles” is in no danger of realisation at next general election.