THE BARE MAJORITY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 500, 28 October 1909, Page 2

THE BARE MAJORITY.

Thk Premier bar stated that he will consider furtder legislation in reference to the Licensing question next session.

The Alliance, as the representative of the temperance forces of the country in relation to temperance legislative reform has, from the. beginning, consistently contended for the right of the majority of the voters to settle the liquor question. When in 1893 the first Government measure to confer upon the people the power to suppress licenses, which contained the three-filths provision, was before the House, Sir Robert Stout described it as “a sham, a delusion and a snare.” The Bill having become law, this provision was strenuously opposed, 'and at the next annual public meeting of the Alliance (April 1894), Dr Newman, the present Mayor of Wellington, moved, and the Rev. Edward Walker seconded, the following resolution, which was carried unanimously : “That the meeting expresses the deliberate conviction that no Act of Parliament dealing with the liquor traffic will recognise the right of the people if it does not give them the power by a majority of the votes cast to determine for themselves whether the traffic shall or shall not exist in their respective localities,” For fifteen years since then the people in favour of temperance reform have been defrauded of a part of the equitable value of every vote that they have recorded on the liquor question, two votes in favour of continuing the liquor traffic being regarded by the law .as equal to three votes against it. To the bulk of temperance reformers it has been a long, weary, time in which they have chafed sorely under the gross injustice. But it is refreshing to see that at last, it is not likely to have to be endured much longer. The immense enthusiastic meetings just held in the four chief centres of population have afforded to politicians an unmistakeable indication of the quickening of public opinion, which has been taking place on this question, and this must soon have practical results in Parliament. One of the most scandalous aspects of the political injustice is, that it places the moral and social interests of every district where a majority short of three-fifths is in favour of Nolicense at the disposal of the minority. Of 57 electortes where the majority have voted in favour, of No-license, licenses are continued in 46 by the votes of the minority. It has been urged that the three-fifths arrangement gives a stable result. During the r 6 years that it has been tried it has undoubtedly given stability, but it has been stability to “the trade,” and the greatest obstruction to temperance reformers is the avowed temperance politician who supports it. This unfortunate legislative example has been most baneful in its influence on licensing legislation in both Australia and Canada —in New South Wales and Victoria in the one case, and in Manitoba and Ontario in the other. And, unless it is speedily rectified, it may obstruct the cause of legislative temperance reform at the centre as well as the outposts of the Empire, and even in foreign countries. A very grave responsibility therefore rests upon our people aud legislators in this matter, for the well-being of millions may be involved. All Canada had local option by bare majority until recently, and Manitoba has again reverted to bare majority. Ontario alone, on the whole North American continent requires more than a bare majority (namely three-fifths) for No-license at local option polls, and there temperance reformers ate labouring strenuously to recovertheir bare majority right, which, but for this country’s evil example they probably would never have lost. There is very little fear that when No-license has been carried by bare majority, with the trade in full force to resist it, that majority will be maintained when the trade as a local resisting force has ceased to exist. At least a district here or there which might be lost again for a time through some exceptional circumstance, would be as nothing compared with the large number of districts which would be gained. In New Zealand it has already been conclusively proved that effective enforcement does not de-

pend upon the size of the majority,, hut on the character of the administration Ashburton even under a minority vote, having better enforcements to-day than when under a three-fifths majority. In any case majority rule is the only absolutely equitable arrangement, the only possible arrangement free from anomalies, and the only arrangement which can bring legislative finality,