LIQUOR TRAFFIC REFORM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 443, 15 December 1908, Page 3

LIQUOR TRAFFIC REFORM.

Horowhetiua County Council. Jumps out of its Harness. Ridiculous Suggestions.

The question of reform in the liquor traffic was discussed at considerable length by the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday, the matter being brought up by Cr Venn.

The latter moved and the Chairmain seconded pro forma, “ That the Clerk ascertain from the adjacent Boroughs ami County Councils, their opinion as to the advisability of an admendmcnt in the existing Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act, whereby the reduction clause shall be repealed and, in any electorate where nolicense is ‘carried the control aud sale of such liquors may upon a petition signed by the same majority of the electors that carried no license, aud endorsed by a majority of the above Councils, become vested either in the whole of the said local bodies within such electorate, or by a Board elected by the people with power for financing same; the net proceeds, after providing for the relief of poverty, to be used in providing mental and physical recreation for the people of such electorate, and should the above Councils favour a meeting in Palmerston North, will they undertake to be represented at same.

CK VENN’S VIEWS,

In speaking to the motion, Cr Venn said that while it might be considered the matter was outside their province, they were the predominant body in the district in respect to the liquor traffic. The Council received the fees for the licenses, and was the connecting link between the people and the people’s wants. “We are distributed about the district, and feel the pulse of the people far more than members of Parliament,” continued Cr Venn, “and it is the opinion of every thinking man that the time is ripe for something of this description.” While the uo-liceuse vote had increased by about 20 per cent, the drink that had been consumed during the same period had advanced between 30 and 40 per cent, The consumption of drink was increasing faster than the no-license vote. This proved that it was not the prohibitionists, but the great bulk of the people, who were voting for nolicense —the moderate drinkers, who were disgusted with the manner in which the liquor traffic was conducted. “ It is absurb,” said Cr Venn, “ to place beer on the same plane as morphia or opium, and to think that the British subject can be forced to pay 7s 6d for a doctor’s certificate, before he can get a glass of beer.

BEEE AND BRITISH BEER have laid the foundation of the British Empire, and while I have sympathy with the prohibition party, in their desire to remove the temptation from the younger generation, I am satisfied that they are visionary dreamers, and that complete prohibition will never be brought about under a British constitution.” However, they wanted something better than they had now, and. the first thing was to remove the trade monopoly. There were about 1200 hotels in the colony, and each made a profit, on the average, of something like /2000. If this profit were controlled by the Councils, they could pay Charitable Aid and Hospital rates from it, and leave an immense sum for improved reading, etc. The County paid between and a year for relieving the

scrap heap of humanity, who have been brought, by the unrestrained sale of liquor to depend on charity. “ This country,” continued Cr. Venn, “ is one of the dearest on earth for alcoholic drink. The profits must be enormous, and the people’s money is being wasted, and going into the pockets of two or three. Common sense and education will force people to recognise the position before many years are past. We are only asking a question,” concluded the speaker, “and we shall probably be sneered at. I think, however, that we can stand that. Cr. Prouse said that licensees of hotels were paying ,£4O for a monopoly, which if auctioned would fetch from £IOOO to £2OOO. He differed with Cr. Venn in some respects, but was prepared to support the motion. Cr. Stephenson, while agreeing with the views expressed in Cr. Venn’s resolution, felt that the matter was outside the province of the Council. REDUCTION A ERAUD. Referring to reduction, Cr. Venn added that it had been a fraud from the beginning. It meant that the weak man would go to the wall, and the rich man would coin money. The motion was carried, Crs. Stephenson and Tompsitt being the only voters against it.—Times