PROHIBITION RALLY.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4898, 2 November 1925, Page 2

PROHIBITION RALLY.

(Extended Report by Arrangement.)

REV. L. B. FLETCHER AT PAEROA. RECORD AUDIENCE PRESENT. Long before the appointed hour on Paeroa, was packed .to .the doors by Paeroa, aws packed-to the doots by people of all shades of opinion to hear the address delivered by tne Rev. Lionel B. Fletcher on the prohibition issue. His Worship the Mayor (Mr W. Marshall) presided, and seated dn the platform with him were tne Rev. R. Morgan and Mr W. H. Blakeway.

In introducing the speaker the Mayor explained that the meeting had been arranged under the auspices of the N.Z. Alliance. The Rev. Fletcher Was an accredited minister of an Auckland Congregational church. The Mayor said he felt sure it was unnecessary to appeal to the audience to accord the speaker a fair hearing. He came as a stranger to Paeroa, but he came with a reputation as an able speaker. The Mayor then introduced the speaker. The Rev. Lionel B. Fletcher, who -was received ‘ with great applause, after thanking the people for .their kind welcome, at once opened the subject on which he was fo speak. He reminded them that he had been originally advertised ,to speak on “The Challenge of the present World Crisis,” and then, later, the announcement had been made that he would reply tp Mr Burke. He proposed, therefore, to first of all make his reply to three questions which Mr Burke had put forward when speaking at Thames, and which he had specially asked might be answered by Mr Fletcher. These questions practically embraced’ all that requires an answer in the address, which Mr Burke of any other individual on the he would go on with his lecture bn “The Challenge of the present World Crisis,” which would contain his statement bif the case ,as he saw :it for Prohibition as against Continuance.

He made it quite clear that he had no feeling of animosity towards Mr Burke or ay other individual on the Liquor side; but he was out to advocate what he felt to be a reform that wqkild make New Zealand an increasingly rich and glorious country. Mr Burke’s, first question, and a matter which he had ’stressed a great deal in his address, was, “Is i,t a fact that the Volstead Act of the United States of America, was passed, when 201 members were absent from Congress, and that therefore it was a snatch vote ?”

Mr Fletcher, in reply, said that he had taken a prominent part in the great anti-liquor fight for some years and had heard all sorts of arguments put forward against Prohibition, but he had never before heard any suggestion degarding the Volstead Act being used as a serious argument about American prohibition. In fact, it had absolutely nothing to do witht he existence of prohibition in America. He must say quite frankly that he thought that Mr Burke really could not know the difference between “The Vo’riead Act” and “The Eighteenth Amendment.” These were two totally distinct things. The Volstead Act was the law which defined how much alcohol was to be permitted in any liquor imported or sold for human consumption, and it defined that amount as being the half of one per cent. The law’ which brought prohibition to America was called “The Eighteenth Amendment,” and that certainly was’ not carried by a snatch vote, as that would be quite impossible. If Mr Burke knew anything of American law at all. he would know that before the Eighteenth Amendment of the American Constitution was carried three-fourths of the States of America had to ratify that Amendment in their State Legislatures, or Parliaments, as we would call them. It had to be remembered that there were 48 States, in America, each State having its own Parliament, and when “The Eighteenth Amendment” —which meant prohibition—was added to the Constitution it was carried not only by the required 36 States, but by 46 States, .the only two States which failed to sty carry it being Rhode Island and Connecticut. After this Amendment was thus carried and declared law, then the question arose, “What does this law prohibit?” The answer was, “All alcoholic liquors.” But then, the question aro-e, “What are alcoholic liquors ?” The answer to that question was the Volstead Act, which declared that any liquor containing more than one half of one per cent, alcohol dime under the Prohibition Law and tills law had been sustained by .the Supreme cour.t of America. It' would not matter if it was carried by a snatch vote, because any law' such as that could be repealed or amended at any time by a vote of Congress, and the facfi that it had not, showed that it was the will of the people. The second question was, “Is it a fact that no referendum was tnkcnS?" Mr Burke had attempted to answer that question in Paeroa, when he said "A referendum on the liqour question In America was unknown to the people,” and Inter on he njsliotl ‘‘Why was It that the Anti-Snloon Umguo nml the bootleggers were both lighting ngninst n referendum on the subject ?” Mr Fletcher said he wns really mnazod al this statement, becauso it was entirely contrary to| fact. He himself had been in America since the incoming of prohibition, and had there made Impartial Inquiries, on the spot, and it, was (lie result of those I'miuirles which had made him a confirmed prohibitionist. The Constitution of America did not allow a referendum to be taken regarding the amendment ojf the Constitution, and before a referendum could be taken the Constitution would have to be altered, and no one was proposing that, and .therefore no. one was. opposing it. The Stirie of Michigan had a referendum could be taken, so) that the outside world could see how the mass of American people favoured

prohibition. But for Mr Burke to say that a referendum on the question in America was unknown was far from correct. The State of Michigan had a referendum and adopted prohibition on November 7, 1916, by a majority of 68,00'0. . On April 7, 1919, the same State had a second neferendum on a proposal to allow light wines and beer, and that proposal was defeated by a majority of 200,000. The State of Ohio waited until the soldiers returned freftn the war and had a referendum on a proposal to allow 2.75 per cent, alcohol in their beer, and this was defeated. Then, in November, 1922, Ohio had a second referendum on light wines and beer, and this time the electors endorsed prohibition by a majority of 189,000 votes. Other States had also allowed their people to vote by a referendum on the. subject, and in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona a great majority for prohibitityn was recorded —in fact, no State referendum had declared against prohibition,

Coming to the question of “The Challenge of the present World Crisis,” and quite apart from the liquor question, the Rev. Mr Fletcher’s views on the development of a new world centre in the Pacific and the grave crisis which will follow the uutimate awakening of China, whether in a military or an industrial sense, revealed him as a particularly fine student of history and a deep thinker, while his oratory, particularly when he came down to denunciation off the liquor traffic in connection with the world war, held the audience spell-bound. The lecturer said he had made a close study of present world conditions, and he was convinced that '.he Pacific Ocean was destined to figure in future world history as the Mediterranean had figured in the past. And if so, they might be sure that New Zealand would have a part, and a most important part, ,to play on the world’s stage. Round the Pacific were Canada, the United Stages, the great South American Republics on the one side, and on the other side Jar ah yrtth 50 or 60 million people, and China with a’ population of 450,000,000. The Chinese, with their ancient civilisation and their hatred of war, were perhaps the brainiest people on the face of the earth. With their wonderful physique, their thrift, their enormous resources’ of cheap man-power, and their brain-power, they could undersell every nation in the world, and he would say, if China woke -<p to her tremendous possibilities beftyre she was Christianised God help the world .' New Zealand held a key position for the great movements of the future, and was bound to influence the destinies of the world, perhaps as greatly as Britain herself had done. He would ask them one question. Tn the world crisis which we were actually passing through at the moment, would the continuance of the liquor traffic help us ? If we might reason from the way in which the liquor traffic behaved in the awful days of 1914 to 1918 it could not help us, but would serityusly hinder. ! Quoting froom ’ Churchill's- recent History of the War the speaker pointed out how close Britain was to being starved into submission during the war, when only a few months' supply of food remained, and it seemed certain that the Germans wbuld take Paris and cut England off from food supplies by her submarines. In those days thousands of hungry people stooi. in queues during the terrible winter weather, waiting to get small supplies of food, and even when the Food Controller put the nation on rations and so saved the situation the sufferings of the people Were great. The rations for an adult during those days were 6oz of sugar a week; %lb of meat a week ; 2oz of butter a week ; and 4oz of bread a day. Bread ! It wan a of barley meal, peasemeal, and a little wheat-meal flour, was the colour of cocoanut matting, and was most unappetising and repellant, particularly as the bakers were not allowed to sell it until it was 36 hours old. During those terribel days Mr Arthur Mee, editor of'"My Magazine,” and other well-known publications, had. endeavoured tp arouse the nation by his fearless exposure of the fact, that ,the Government, dominated by the liquor interests, had given those interests such advantages that while the nation was so seriously handicapped that the war was being prolonged and people were being starved, the brewers were receiving millions of pounds sterling in dividends anil were destroying thousands of tons of foodstuffs to make alcohol. Mr Fletcher produced a document which showed that a , London caterer, at whose restaurants. 45,000 people daily ate meals, actually sent a vessel to the Philippines ami brought her home laden with sugar, but when that sugar arrived at the Ptyrt of London he received the document produced, telling him that it could not be delivered except to a brwery. The lecturer wont on to paint a ghastly picture of raises with which Ito had come in personal contact of soldiers’ wives debauched in tlioir husbands’ absentee, fulling aprey to tihe drink evil, leaving their children *fb shame, their homes to become verminous nml foul, He laid the charge of dolmuehtng these wxv mon nt. the door of the trade, which ho denounced ns a soulless business, Ills hearers had heard the truth about the doings of this hntsiness, ami what were they prepitved to do to stamp It out ? There was only one tray, am) that was to vow to heaven that on November Hit they would send Now Zealand dry, so that our glorious Dominion shotihl for over bo free. Then wo would hand on to .the next generation a land glorious in resource, magnificent in its climate, and free from tlie handicap which was blighting so many noble lives and blasting the happiness of so many wives and children. He concluded by urging each elector to vote for prohibition, and also for no-license.

Three written question were answered by the lecturer. On the motion of Mr Blakeway, seconded by Mr J. E. Bigelow, a Vote of thanks to Mr Fletcher was carried with hearty acclamation, as also was one to the Mayor for presiding.