ABSURDITY OF REDUCTION.

Gisborne Times, Volume XIX, Issue 1616, 1 December 1905, Page 1

ABSURDITY OF REDUCTION.

It is a rank absurdity to imagine that the causo of toinporanco' reform will bo extended by tho ourtftilxbontof the number of lioenses in operation in a oity. Shopkeepers .know that a corlain amount of trade to be done in all communities, Any iuoroaso in tho number of traders would lessen tho volume of each individual trader, but it would not roduoo tho total trade dono. Tho converso is likewise true. Lot the trade to be dono bo of a certain volumo, and let the ourla'lment or reduction of those to do it bo oileotod, and tboso romaining would do tho greater amount of business. Let this be applied to the trade in alooholio drinks, and tho absurdity of reduction is nppareut. Let it bo supposed that tbero a'ro forty lioenses in Wellington i Reduction, if carried at the poll, might moan the withdrawal of ton lioenses. But no ! inteiligont porson for. e .moment would imugino that the consumption of a’eoliolio liquors would bo diminished by that moans. If a man wants a drink, a hundred yards or a quarter of a mile to Walk to get it will,not deter him from his purpose. Reduction is neither a temperance reform nor a means of restraining aD alleged monopoly in liquor-selling; By reduction a few houses would fco' oloecd, but tho t-ade of those-leit would proportionately inorease. Then why should the community agrao to destroy tho property of one min in order that his neighbor a few doors away might absorb his trade ? Reduction does not appeal, any more than uo-lieenso or prohibition, to tho Brit'shere’ love of fair dealing, and the more reason-' ab.lo of our prohibition friends oannot surely agree to vote for the'- running of a few men eo that their fellows in the same lino might secure an inorease in trade end weelth. The two bottom lines of tho Voting paper ought therefore to be obliterated.—Wellington Post. “ ‘7;