NO LICENSE CAMPAIGN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 441, 12 November 1908, Page 2

NO LICENSE CAMPAIGN.

Mr Hornblow replies to Dr. Hatharley.

Despite the short notice, there was a full house at the Masonic Hall last night to hear Mr Hornblow’s reply on behalf of the NoLicense party to Dr. Hatherley, of Wanganui, who spoke as the advocate of “the trade” at the Public Hall last Sunday night on the subject of “true temperance.” Senior Cr. P. J. Hennessy occupied the chair, .The speaker received a splendid hearing and spoke for an hour and a half and was repeatedly applauded. There were three or four interjections, but these were turned to excellent account by the speaker. Personalities were carefully avoided and the best feeling prevailed throughout the meeting. Mr Hornblow outlined the attempts made by reformers to regulate the traffic during the past hundred years, but despite this fact, octopuslike, it had grown and flourished throughout the Empire and had sapped the lif e-blood of some of the nation’s best manhood, besides producing untold misery and unhappiness. He dealt with the growth of the movement in New Zealand. Stringent licensing laws had been passed in order to try and regulate it, but the only hope of reform was to “ reform it out of existence” (applause). He then dealt with the progress ot the movement from 1894 when the NoLicense party polled 48,435. He quoted the increase at every poll which showed that in 1905 the NoLicense vote for New Zelaand was 198,768, or a majority over the liquor vote of 15,884 (prolonged applause). He predicted that as sure as day followed the night so sure would No-License be carried throughout New Zealand in the near future and yet Dr Hatherley had very conveniently forgotten to mention this fact. He then dealt with the progress of the movement in Manawatu and quoted figures of the last poll: Continuance 2012, NoLicense, 2554, being 217 short of the required three-fifths majority which they hoped to secure next Tuesday. (Applause). He thought that the alterations of the electoral boundary would not set back the No-License vote. He then referred to the financial aspect of the question and asked whether it was good business on the part of Foxton to throw away at least £ 7,500 in order to get back ! He asked who got the bulk of the ,£7,500 ? The tied house magnate and brewer ! The money would be more reproductive and beneficial if circulated in more legitimate channels. In dealing with Dr. Hatherley’s speech, he stated that the “ trade ” advocate had deliberately misrepresented figures in the Official Year Book in reference to the cost of liquor per head of the population. He based his figures on the wholesale cost, and forgot to tell his hearers by whom these figures were compiled. The speaker said at the lowest computation the retail cost of liquor per head of the population was ,£5, This was for the whole population, and was well within the mark. Fully five millions was spent in the Dominion solely on liquor in order to get back ,£827,660 °f revenue ! The revenue we derived from liquor was more than absorbed in meeting the expenditure caused by drink alone on our Industrial Schools, Hospitals, Gaols, Asylums, etc. He then refuted at length Dr Hatherley’s statements in reference to Ashburton, Invercargill and Oatniru, proving his statements by Government official records. He dealt at length with the religious aspect of the question, and stated that it was nothing short ot sacrilege on the part of liquor advocates, to quote scripture, in order to bolster up their side, and quoted passages from the Old and New Testament which had been most conveniently overlooked by Dr Hatherley. In referring to sly grog-selling, he said that there was considerably more sly grogselling in licensed areas than obtained under No-License. Every glass ot liquor sold after hours or on Sundays on licensed premises, constituted sly grog-selling and the police were coni routed with perjury and found it extremely difficult to get a conviction. The trade should be the last people in the world to speak about spies and perjury. For every person that drink had in any way benefited (excepting financially) hundreds were ruined physically, financially, and morally. He then dealt at length with the stock arguments used by the “trade” against No-License, laying special stress on the “ liberty of the subject,” and stated that every law that protected society as a whole, interfered with the liberty of the subject. He said that Dr Hatherley’s remarks in reference to what would obtain in our midst if NoLicense were carried, was a libel and a slander on our young men (applause). He made a stirring appeal to those present to vote No-License in order to uplift those who are being demoralised by drink and for the sake of the women and the betterment of the little children. He closed by reciting Bracken’s “ Vilest Fiend of all.”

One or two questions of a minor nature were asked and answered satisfactorily, after which Mr P. T. Robinson moved, and Mr S. H. Baker seconded, that a hearty vote of thanks be accorded the speaker, and that this meeting is of opinion that the electors of Manawatu will be studying the best interests of humanity—financially, morally, and i hysically—by votng No-

License at the forthcoming poll. After waiting for a time the Chairman asked if anyone desired to move an amendment, and Mr D, Hagerty moved, and Mr R. Morley seconded an amendment, that in the opinion of this meeting No-License would be unbeneficial. ,

The motion was carried by a large majority.

A vote of thanks to the chair concluded the meeting.