The Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, SEPT. 2, 1898. A Second Poll.

Manawatu Herald, 2 September 1893, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, SEPT. 2, 1898. A Second Poll.

Before the Licensing Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Premier, it was openly said that the Government feared the liquor ring Whether true then, matters little now, as the 33111 speaks for itself. We have before pointed out how every restriction in the Bill was in favour of licensed premises and against the Prohibitionists, but the amendment, accepted by the Premier on Tuesday, puts the crowning touch on all. The Bill originally directed that a vote of the people was to be taken once in three years, the decision to be final for that time. We have shown how utterly impossible it would be for Prohibitionists to carry the Direct Veto, and pointed out how safe and snug the trade would be under the protecting arm of this licensing Bill. The trade has allowed its success to run away with its judgment, and having secured so much, grasped for more, and, fortunately, got it. We sny fortunately, advisedly, as it so clearly shows in what spirit the Bill has been framed all through. This one-sided measure has now been made so much more one-sided that those who run may read. The Bill directs that a poll, for the Prohibitionists, is only to be held once in three years, by the result of "which they must fall, not stand, as, it is

now added as a Hew clause, in the \ p.vmt. of ih - determination of/h". elector* j that no pitblieti.-t's licenses should be i granted, a s cowl ■foil ahull he held. " 3>ung " is to have two chances to one, po that if caught napping once he. o.in arise in his power of purse and beer and crush the efforts of those who are working, at any rate, only fir what tlisv ' believe "to bo right, \\V foal pertain that this new cliiu*! will d) more to set the " i nod orates " on the side of Direct Veto tli.in all p-ist persuasion has succeeded, ns it so openly proclaim; how quickly those placed in Hi»h p'nr-^ cm hi led at the bidding of Hip liquor trade.

This second poll arrangement, if good on ih:> on,. s ide should be equally f.iir on the other side, and offers, to our mind, a solution of the difficulty as to majorities and catch votes. Why should not the Direct Veto be taken on a certain day, the result to be determined by the majority of the poll, and then" to be held in abeyance until confirmed at a poll held six months hence ? No one could then raise a question as to the decision having been a hasty one, and the result of the first poil would bave the effect of putting either side on their -mettle to turn the second poll to their own advantage. This seems a much fairer proposal than to declare that the Prohibitionists shall have only one chance and the liquor trade shall have two. The idea is not new. a,s the principle is in force in all local bodies, who, in making special orders, have to give notice of their intention so to do at one meeting, and then they have to confirm it not earlier than a month, after giving due public notice. The most active party might succeed on the first poll, but the most thoughtful party would carry the second poll. The trade has asked for a second poll, let the electors have it, but let it be to decide an open question.

In connection with this liquor question we notice that the Ministerial newspaper in Wellington, which is indirectly interested in the liqnor trade, concludes a leading ! article in these words " Afc the general election it is the duty of all true Liberals to sink the liquor question !" What a pitiful appeal to make to party ! The liqnor trade having got everything it can possibly want, now urges, through its newspaper, the cry "sink the liquor question." It is just because the trade has shown the immense power it possesses, that will cause those, who look upon the licensing question apart from tiedhouses to assist those who are doing their best to counteract the evil influence of this public-house trade. The " Moderates " desiro to see a fair fight, and the poll secured by either side on an equitable basis, but an attempt at tyranny as shown by this Bill, is apt to turn the " moderates " to the side of the Prohibitionists, as it would have turned them against the Prohibitionists were not fair play granted to the trade. The present Licensing Bill, so unfairly framed, will perhaps assist more in soenring the exercise of the Direct Veto, than a Bill introduced directly for that purpose, owing to the designs of the trade having thus been clearly brought to light. Why " Liberals " should be asked to a sink the liquor question " for the purpose of returning men who support this liquor trade, is a question for "Liberals" to answer but we should very much like to hear the answer. We much regret that the election will be so much overshadowed by this liquor question, but it is so forced upon our attention now that it cannot help being a real test question, ■ and Ministers need not be surprised if they are numbered with the slain. The people feel very strongly upon this liquor question and will demand an immediate alteration of one of the worst Bills on the subject yet introduced into Parliament. At the general election it will be the duty of all true men to raise the liquor questiou.