THE GREAT REFORM.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1044, 16 September 1911, Page 4

THE GREAT REFORM.

[Published by Arrangement.]

At Last!

THERE has been delivered at the houses of Palmerston North a leaflet entitled “How to Vote.” It is a liquor leaflet. It is their defence of the drunkardmaking business. It is their plea for continuance. What do they say?

A. One would expect that very shame would compel them to refer to the drunkenness returns, of which we have over 50,000 separate persons in the last ten years convicted for the first time.

What do they say about this great army of drunkards they have made ? They say not one word. B. One would expect that common decency would lead them to offer the people some respite from the intolerable and needless burden of drinkcaused crime, sickness, poverty and inefficiency, with which the country is burdened.

What do they promise or offer in the way of relief ? Absolutely nothing. The reasons they give why you should vote for continuance are these. Don’t laugh as you read them.

Bombshell No. i. That the accommodation in No-License districts is the worst in N.Z.

What is it that they want ? They want you to continue the drunkardmaking business, which will turn out 50,000 first • convictions in the next ten years. They want you to sacrifice 50,000 men—for the sake of hotel accommodation.

But it is not true that the accommodation in No-License districts is the worst in N.Z. We come across commercial travellers who tell us strange facts about some licensed places in New Zealand. The Land Commissioners’ stated that in their journeyings in 1905 they found as good accommodation, and, on the average, better accommodation in prohibition townships than elsewhere. The shell has fizzled out. There is nothing in it. Bombshell No. 2. That National Prohibition would keep wealthy tourists away from N.Z. This sort of thing was said about Invercargill in 1905. The Brewers said that “Tourists wmild not visit the town.” But the facts have been that people have come there in greater numbers than ever. Visitors have come from all over New Zealand, British Islands, United States of America, India, Australia, etc. One would think that wealthy tourists were so wedded to their drink that they couldn’t do without it for two or three months. It sounds uncommonly like a resurrected scare cry. Which is of the greater benefit to New Zealand; 50,000 of its inhabi tants kept sober for 10 years, or the money that some (not all) problematical, alcoholic tourists might have left, and didn’t because they couldn’t leave drink alone for 3 months ? Bombshell No. 3. That NoLicense means increased rates. This is mere assertion without

proof. We ask at once: Give the names and figures of the towns that had to make up lost license fees by increased taxation When any specific case is examined, we find that town improvements, and not No-License were the cause of any temporary rise, and that in other cases THE RATES WERE ACTUALLY LOWERED. Bombshell No. 4. That National Prohibition means increased Government taxation. Here the brazen impudence of the liquor business shows out. Already we are bearing a burden of taxation in order to care for the drunkenness, drink caused crime, insanity, sickness and poverty arising from the liquor traffic. Drunkenness will practically stop with the advent of National Prohibition. Drink caused poverty, and crime will be a thing of the past. These financial burdens will be taken away by National Prohibition, and while we shall have to maintain the then dwindling number of lunatics, criminals and sick folk that owe their plight to drink, still it is drink that has saddled us with this burden, and it will grow less in a few years. It is perfectly ridiculous to think that the £5,000,000 that now is wasted in liquor per annum, would not yield a substantial revenue if diverted to legitimate channels of trade.

The most wasteful economies js that which spends five millions in drink to gain £750,000 of revenue, and then has to use all that revenue in caring for the results of drink.