The Kaikoura Star KAIKOURA, NOV. 8, 1894. State Control.

Kaikoura Star, Volume XIV, Issue 789, 8 November 1894, Page 4

The Kaikoura Star KAIKOURA, NOV. 8, 1894. State Control.

Adaptation of an improvement of the Gothenburg system of disposing of alcoholic beverages on lines suggested by the Kaikoura Star are apparently gaining ground. Suggested by this journal is claimed, because the Star was the first newspaper in the Colony to urge State treatment of the matter. Indeed it was in these columns that the idea was first publicly advanced, and, so far as we know, it originated with us. This is not laid stress upon with the view of establishing a claim for having promulgated an exceedingly brilliant scheme. It is to show that after years of persistent advocacy the conception is in process of adoption. The Sydney Bulletin, one of the most outspoken and ably conducted journals in the Southern Hemisphere, has espoused the idea. In urging application of the notion it savs

‘ . . . Under a system of State control the first object would be to have as few bais as would conveniently supply the wants of the population, instead of as many as the population can be induced to support. Every liquor-seller would be a public servant paid by a fixed salary. He would be compelled by' law to sell drink to every sober pel son desiring to buy, but he would receive no commission on sales, and therefore would have no inducement to push business. He would merely supply a demand instead of endeavouring tccreate one. The ex-prize-fighters and other brutal rowdies, who form a considerable proportion of the botelkeeping class, would be driven out of the business. The dirty, unkempt ‘ pub,’ redolent of the dregs and ashes of many ancient drunks, would give place to a bright, clean and comfortable establishment. And, simply because the salesman would have

nothing to gain by selling to unsober customers, the dipsomaniac's orgy would often be stopped in its initial stages.’ (The Bulletin chiefly refers to the objectionable class of men conducting third rate ‘ drinking shops.’) Objections are taken by two class of opponents. First, from those engaged in the business—because it would trespass on their domains, and deprive them of a lucrative means of living at the expense of others. As the self interests of a, relatively, infinitesimal minority are here placed against the welfare of the vast majority the suggested reform must meet with commendation from unbiassed minds having a desire to aid the many against the few. The other class of objections compromise those who, seeking to abolish the use of alcoholic liquors as an article of consumption, view with horror the very thought of the State engaging in such an unholy traffic.’ Their contentions are specious, but based on misconceptions; their objections more pharasaical than reasonable, They would deprive those people who use, but do not abuse, a gift of the opportunity of obtaining- what they require and of obtaining it in the strictest moderation. The user of alcoholic beverages does not force such liquids upon tho abstainer—who is free to drink what he pleases—but the total abstainer seeks to interfere with the liberty of those who do not imbibe at his fountain. Reasonable restrictions are rightly placed upon man’s liberty of action. It is unreasonable to entirely deprive him of liberty, when that liberty is governed by safeguards. To adopt State control of the disposal of alcoholic beverages would be to place the matter in the hands of the people, who could eventually, if so disposed, determine, either, to suspend the State supply of such liquids, or to entirely discontinue the service. In the event, however, of the one or the other no bar should be placed to the importation of what even the minority require. The advantages of State supply are : absolute control under good officers ; assurance of the quality of the article sold ; and the abolition of every incentive to promote the use of intoxicants in any way.