THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AWAY?

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4457, 23 August 1922, Page 3

THEY CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS AWAY?

In a democratic country votes talk, and when they have spoken there h ; no doubt about what they mean. Now, ask the New Zealand liquor traffic hov.' it is that, in the U.S.A., in the States that went dry before National Prohibition, the people, after, trying it, vi-ted to keep Prohibition by increasing majorities. Here are some of the votes that show that the voting majority like Prohibition

Dry Majority, 1916 . — — 215,036 Increase in dry majority __ 196,404 The total aggregrate increase in the “ dry ” majority for the six States was 700 320 votes, after two years’ trial.

When we get New Zealand Prohibition we shall find the snme results. People find put when the liquor traffic is abolished that a wasteful, unmitigated nuisance has been retaovedOnce they have tasted the benefits of Prohibition no amount of lying and yelling by the liquor interests can befool the people into voting it back again. Prohibition is just commonsense.—N.Z. Alliance Publicity.

ARIZONA. Dry majority, 1914 __ 3,144 Dry majority, 1916 __ 12,000 Increase in. dry majority __ 8,856 COLORADO. Dry majority, 1914 „ 11,572 Dry majority, 1913' __ 85,792 Increase in dry majority __ 74,220 MICHIGAN. Dry majority, 1916— __ 68,624 Dry majority, ,1919 206,936 Increase in dry majority __ 138,312 OREGON. Dry majority, 1914 — __ 36,480 Dry majority, 1916 __ 54,626 Increase in dry majority __ 18,146 OHIO. Dry majority, 1918 — 25,759 Dry majority, 1920 — __ 290,141 Increase in dry majority __ 264 382 WASHINGTON. Dry. majority, 19141 __ 18,632