THAT COMPROMISE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 609, 14 December 1909, Page 3

THAT COMPROMISE.

A REPLY TO THE TRADE. MESSRS DEWDNEY AND DAWSON STATE THEIR CASE. Wellington, December 10. In the course of a statement prepared by the Rev. A. Dewdney and the Rev, J. Dawson, members of the executive of the New Zealand Alliance, in reply to the strictures of the Trade, the following interesting particulars are given:— The Alliance did not make the first approach tor a compromise. The first step was taken by the Hon. Dr. Findlay, on behalf ot the Premier. At the first interview Dr. Findlay submitted to us the demands of the liquor party, which were as follows : (1) No poll in 1911, nor until r9H(2) Dominion prohibition and local option with 55-iooths majority, Dominion vote not to take effect for six years, and local option not to take effect for three years, or Dominion and prohibition bv a bare majority not to take effect for six years, 110license by 3-stbs majority not to take effect for two years. (3) Eliminate the reduction issue. (4) Three issues on .ballot paper— (a) Continuance ; (b) NoLicense; (c) Dominion prohibition. No voter having right to vote for more than one issue. These proposals we )emphatically stated we would not even discuss. They were quite out of the question. After many interviews an agreement (the memos of which were subsequently published) was arrived at. This was carefully considered by the Executive of the Alliance, and ultimately we were authorised to sign it. Full details could not be stated in precise legal phraseology. This was realised by Dr. Findlay, and his good faith was shown in the provision for the appointment of solicitors representing each side, to whom the draft Bill was submitted for revision and approval before being ' presented to Parliament. We had not been able to consult the whole party. Tbe bond of confidence made that impossible, but we felt we should be able to secure its endorsement ot the points agreed upon. The letter to the Premier, which (together with the letter to Dr. -Findlay) was as much of the essence of the agreement as the terms themselves, conveyed that hope. We therein agreed to further by all means iu our power the passage into law ot the agreement. That meant that we undertook to secure as far as possible the support of our party, and we desire to make it very clear that, as signatories to the agreement, we have to the utmost of our power honourably endeavoured to carry out its terms. Personally, we are still prepared to stand by those terms, and we did our best to secure the full assent of our party. The party observed every item of the agreement save one. On that point we know that the voters were possibly being asked to vole for something more than they desired. We did not wish to confuse the issues, but we believed that in the interval before the election we would be able to educate uo-license voters up to the desire for Dominion prohibition, as well as local option, but the party determined that it was not the right thiug to run the risk of compelling a man to vote for what he did not want, in order to secure what he did want, or else compel him to refrain from voting, and therefore it asked for separate ballot papers. To that extent the party declined to accept the agreement. Every other item, though it meant surrendering a great deal, the party accepted. In spite of all the angry vituperation oi the other side, we did not and still do not think the point is necessarily a crucial one. Why should it be so regarded ? As a matter of fact, the memos of the agreement had not the force of a legal document. The solicitors for both sides in considering the. draft Bill, exercised the right to vary it iu certain particulars. The right was conceded by each side and admitted by Dr. Findlay. We felt that if the professions of the other side really meant anything they ought to be prepared to consider the alteration suggested. Over and over again representatives of the Trade have declared that all they desire is that as a strafgthout issue it should be submitted to the electors. That is what we want, but the ballotpaper suggested does not give that; it ties up in one vote two tangled issues. Why not, then, separate them and let the issues be clearly put ? * We say, if people want Dorasnion prohibition let them say so. If they want local no-license, let them say so- All we desire is a dear expression of the people’s will. Our party asks that in that point alone an alteration be made, f throughout the whole proceedngs we have acted in perfect good faith, we have not fooled nor wished to fool either Government nor liquor party. Individually we still think the basis arrived at would prove a satisfactory one, and if it has been a business bargain between us as individuals and the Government we should have been prepared to take the risk, but since this was a matter that affected many thousands of voters, many of whom protested against this particular point, we felt that we had no right to insist in overriding their wishes when , their judgment differed from ours.