CORRESPONDENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2082, 17 May 1907, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

LIQUOR LAWS OF NORWAY

l’o the Editor of tho Gisborno Times.

Sir, —111 this morning’s issue of your paper you published part ol' a roxiorb on the above subject .by the “Scottish Temperance Legislation Board.” I will be glad if you will kindly permit me to briefly reply to this matter. In order that the public may not be misled, I may say that tliis organisation is not in the ordinary sense a temporanco one, though, lor purposes of its own, it loads the public to believe so. It is a “Legislative Board” that has been formed for the solo purpose of engrafting upon our English legislation the Gothenborg system of liquor control. It is true, as stated in the report, that Norway is one of the most sober countries in the world. But the cause of this has been the operation of No-License in the rural districts and smaller towns, and not the result of the Company system adopted in the cities, as tho report would make it appear. Proof of this is seen in the fact that in the cities where the Company system prevails the amount of liquor consumed and the convictions for drunkenness are far in excess of even the most drunken cities ol Great Britain. For instance, in Hull, an English city, with a population of 240,000, tho convictions for drunkenness from 1903 to 1906, averaged 2978 per year, whilst for Christiana, a Norwegian city, with a population of 228,000, the arrests for drunkenness from 1901 to 1904 averajged 12,207 per year. The same can practically be said of Bergen, Frandhjen, and other Norweigen cities where the Samlag Company, system is in force. This fearful state of things is emphasised by the fact that these Samlag hotels are closed on Saturday aftox--noons, Sundays and holidays. in order to explain away these admitted facts, the writer of the report refused to say “Sometimes the police get a share of the fines.” This statement is absolutely untrue. In a letter published in tlie “Glasgow Herald” (March'Bth last), Mr. Cameron Cobett, M.P., sxys that he telegraphed to Hr. Kiass, “Please wire if police in Norway receive part of fines for drunkenness,” and received a reply in the negative. This correction of careless statement, on an important point shows what little value is to be placed on the report as a whole, which gives internal evidence that it was not conceived in a jixdicial spirit, hut for the express purpose of bolstering up a certain scheme of liquor control.

One of the central features of the Gothenberg system is the so-called elimination of private interest, but this claim cannot be substantiated. The shareholders not only get the substantial interest of 5 or 6 per cent, on the money invested, but as some of the surplus profits go to charitable and other 'kindred objects, shareholders are relieved of the financial strain which those objects necessarily involve in a civilised commonity. If these worthy objects were not sustained by the profits accruing fiom the sale of liquor, the money would have to be found in some other way, towards which the shareholders in their private capacity' would have to contribute both directly and indirectly. Philauthrophy that gets 5 or 6 per cent, on its investments, plus other financial advantages, is not very obtrusive.

So much for the personal interest of the shareholders. How about the managers? We are told that because they get a fixed salary' they have no personal interest in pushing the sale. The fallacy of this is obvious to the brain of even an averaged-sized rabbit. The manager of a general store can only return profits by selling as much of this stock as possible. Similarly, the manager of a drink shop must of necessity push his business in order to succeed. As with the manager of any other trade, his interest in, making his business pay lies in the fact that failure involves dismissal, and success ensures reward. To argue that a number of persons will form themselves into a company for the purpose of selling liquor, and then discourage the sale, reveals a most superficial knowledge of human nature.

The underlying fallacy of the Corporate Control System is that the drink traffic can be regulated. Instead of we regulating it it regulates us. It is amazing that even intelligent people do not seeem to realise the elementary truth that the evil is in the drink* and not in the mothods of distribution. For this reason, amongst others, the regulation of the drink traffic must always fail, as it has everywhere failed in the past. This is true as applied to the individual. After a man has swallowed his glass of liquor he cannot regulate its action upon his system. Uncontrolled, it does its deadly work. As applied to a community it is equally true that regulation will he absolutely futile. The effective regulation of anything necessarily implies the capability of improvement. This capability is wholly lacking in the liquor traffic, lienee , its regulation is impossible. The history of centuries of licensing legislation, without a single exception, prove the truth of this. Believing with Sir Will. Gull (Physician to Queen Victoria) that “Alcohol is the most destructive ageift in this country,” J concur with Sir Tlios. Barlow (King’s Physician) when ho said : “Half measures of dealing with intemperance were no good at all. They must banish alcohol entirely, and they would find it an easier thing to banish it entirely than to do it by half measures.” Regulate the drink traffic, indeed! We might as well try to regulate an earthquake or control a thunderstorm. I am etc. C. PALIv. Agent N. Z. Alliance and Gisborne 1 No-License League. 1 May 15th. !