The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, November 24, 1914. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1328, 24 November 1914, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Tuesday, November 24, 1914. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Mr W. H. Field, the Government candidate at the forthcoming election, has stated his views concerning the Licensing question. He is in favour of a reduction from three-fifths to 55 per cent, to carry National Prohibition, provided the local option issue is deleted. If the latter is retained, Mr Field will support the law as it stands. Whether this compromise will meet with the approval ot a majority of the NoLicense Party or not we cannot say, but a number signed pledge cards refusing to vote for any Parliamentary candidate who would not favour at least a reduction to 55 per cent, to carry No-License or National Prohibition. After these pledge cards were circulated and signed, however, fresh legislation was introduced which compromised those who signed the pledges, and this fact will have to be carefully considered by them. There are prohibition supporters who do not recognise that all great reforms can only be brought about by a spirit of compromise. With such enthusiasts it is a case of all or nothing. There is a division of opinion in the Prohibition Party touching the two issues, viz., National Prohibition and local No-License, and it is becoming more apparent to the majority that this great question will ultimately be settled on the National issue alone. If the Prohibition Party are prepared to settle it on the 55 per cent, basis, we believe the way will be made clear to effect that end by Parliament, as nearly every Parliamentary candidate is in favour of such reduction. The bare majority is, of course, the correct democratic principle, and need not be lost sight of. Would it not be better, therefore, for the Prohibitionists to accept the 55 per cent, compromise as a stepping stone to the bare majority than to absolutely turn It down ?

The Social Democrat’s supporters are stirring up the Prohibition Party iu respect to influencing the Prohibition vote in favour of Mr Robertson. We don’t blame them for that —not in the least. It is very amusing, however, to notice how keen these individuals are to use the Prohibitionists for party purposes. But what are they doing or what have they done in support of the Prohibitionists’ strenuous struggle to educate the voters on this question' of reform ? Absolutely nothing. Mr Robertson was absent from the House when the crucial division took place on the amending Licensing Bill- He was absent in Auckland at the time and explained that he was ill and could not therefore get back In time ’ to record his vote. That explanation is alright so far as it goes, and even his presence in the House would not have altered the division. But how was Mr Robertson to know definitely bow things would go before hand ? What action did Mr Robertson take to secure a pair ? If Mr Robertson is such a champion of the Prohibition cause, as some of his friends would have us believe, nothing would have induced him to leave the fighting line at such a critical time, all his laboured explanations to the contrary.

The Bible-in-State-Schools Party is going to mix up things at the general elections. Numbers of the party supporters have pledged themselves only to support Parliamentary candidates who will grant the party the right to submit this question to a Referendum—that the people themselves shall have the right to decide whether the Bible shall be introduced into the schools. The late Parliament decided that the present system of free, secular and compulsory education as at present should obtain. This, however, does not preclude the schools being used by religious teachers for a certain period before or after school hours. The party, however, demand that the question be submitted to the people. All the candidates standing for this constituency are opposed to the demand of the Bible-in-Schools Party in this connection and as a consequence a number of people who have signed pledge cards will be disfranchised.

The Social Democratic candidate is amusingly inconsistent in this particular. Speaking at Foxton prior to the last election on November 2nd, Mr Robertson said: —

He favoured the referendum on all questions of vital importance to the people.

Apparently Mr Robertson does not think this question of “vital importance.’’ To thousands of people in this country, however, it is considered of “vital importance” and as a champion of majority rule his inconsistency is most amusing. No doubt Mr Robertson can also explain the “spirit” and “letter” of his views as touching the referendum.