LIQUOR REFERENDUMS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10294, 31 May 1919, Page 9

LIQUOR REFERENDUMS

THEIR EVIL RESULTS

A PUBLIC MANIFESTO BY ME W. D LYSNAB.

Now that the official figures show a majority of 9732 votes in favour of continuance, I think we can, with a feeling of relief, conclude that continuance is assured and that this Dominion has been saved from the oppression and evils of prohibition. In all sincerity I consider that our soldiers, who went to war to save us from the domination of the Hun, have performed the next best act of manhood by so overwhelmingly . voting for continuance, and In the last phase of this recent struggle they have clinched the fight'which the liquor trade (admittedly in its own defence), Reform Leagues, and others have put up in their absence, and our country has been saved from the oppression of prohibition which unquestionably would produce much more demoralising and criminal results than those which are the outcome of excessive drinking. ■' In my judgment there is not a single sound argument in favour of prohibition when the .matter is dispassionately and Impartially considered; and I will go farther and say that any person who declares that prohibition is the cure lor the evils of excessive drinking is not a sound man, for he could only have come to this conclusion through being actuated by a spirit /of revenge or by an erroneous and superficial view of - the actual facts and evidence. Unquestionably prohibition is wrong in principle, unchristian in character and powerless as a remedy for intemperance. 1 would here quote Cardinal Manning’s own words on the subject: —"l will go to my grave without tasting intoxicating liquors, but I repeat distinctly that any man who would say that th© use of wine or any other like thing is sinful when it does not lead to drunkenness, that man is a heretic condemned by the Catholic Church. With that man I will never work.”

PROHIBITION INCREASES DRINKING.

We must realise that the evils of drunkenness are bad enough, and rhat we should do nothing that' will beget worse evils. There appears to he a very erroneous impression that by prohibition you do away with drink, and consequently remove the present evils emanating from its abuse.. This is not so. All listory and impartial knowledge deducted from the experience of local prohibition In our own Dominion and other parts of the world clearly show that such prohibition not only increases drinking, but it intensifies the evils of drink in both an immoral and ungodly way. Turkey is the only country in the world where actual prohibition has been tried. Probltion is a cardinal doctrine of the Mohammedan religion, but notwithstanding this fact the Turks are the most povertyridden, criminal nation on this earth, and as the result of the great war have now been practically blotted out as a nation. If prohibition would do the good that its advocates claim, why, may I ask, should the only nation in the world which has adopted it be blotted out of existence? Russia, which is the only other country that has tried prohibition, brought prohibition into force by rn edict of the Czar about the beginning of the war. And here again as a consequence the world has la miserable spec-, tacle of crime, disorder and chaos, and no man living can prudently forecast its future or issue, but this fact is clear, prohibition did not stop Russia from going to her ruin, and certainly hastened her downfall much in the same way as. it did with miserable Turkey, only, much more speedily. In providing for proposed prohibition by law. human nature has not been sufficiently studied, and unless the public is provided with a'; vent to obtain liquor under proper conditions and restrictions no prohibitory law will be effective; and any law which is not obeyed and respected is, I venture to say, worse than no law, for it breels contempt and disregard for all law and order and so lays the foundation stone for all classes of crime, even unto anarchy, and Bolshevism as in Russia’s case. Prohibition is contrary to reason, opposed to nature, an insult to intelligence. destructive of human equality, a menace to manhood, is based upon a false premise, a blow at the basis of all morality, inimical to true religion and powerless as a remedy for intemperance. The thing in man that makes prohibition a failure makes manhood a success, for if you could make prohibition a success you would make man a failure. It is more important to develop real manhood in the masses than to sacrifice 1 its development in a futile effort to save a few weaklings. You can vote a town dry but you cannot vote a man dry. and every argument against the abuse of liquor is an argument for temperance and not'for prohibition. The "whole contention of prohibition rests upon a false premise.

TWO PHASES FOB CONSIDERATION.

I would ask she public who are not extremists on either side in this question to consider two phases. First, will prohibition prohibit and remove the evils which we ail admit and deplore arise from excessive drinking? Secondly, who is it that is forcing this question? In reference to the first question the New Zealand Alliance have definitely answered this phase when they passed a resolution in July, 1004, protesting against the bill introduced by late Hon. Mr Seddon as “involving an intolerable tyranny and. affecting • principles contrary those which determine British law. This had reference to the Hon. Mr Seddon a famous clause 9. which was "No license, no liquor/' and the came principles aro assailed by existing legislation and supported. by prohibitionists. Some of the loaders of the party have admitted that prohibition is not the true remedy for the evils of drink and that it will in fact beget worse evils than drunkenness. Surely it must bo admitted that it is illogically wrong to make bad worse in order to force the country to find a true remedy, which is the basis of their argument, and unless the true remedy can b© found is it not our bounden duty to leave the devil w© know alonoP ■ . On the second hand I suggest that this whole agitation is being forced on by: (a) Certain of the churches (and it is unquestionably weakening their** very foundations). , . (b) By people who are making a living out of it, and - (c) Bv extremists who are actuated by a spirit of revenge or human selfishness. These* extremists can be regarded os faddists or theorists who seem to make | prohibition a form of religion, as they j regard it as the one panacea for the evils [of excessive indulgence, and they obi viously do not realise that prohibition dooS: not in fact prohibit. Some of these people are really monomaniacs on tho, question, and you cannot get them to impartial! yweigh it up and try to discover as to whether prohibition does euro the evils which they wish to rectify. A large section of these people are descended from the old Blue Ribbon Army, many of whom are staunch teetotallers to | their credit, but, unfortunately, their fanatical rejection of nil * reason and experience really puts* back the cause of true liquor reform, .and they utterly fail to realise that it is not the liquor that is bad but its abuse. Until the leaders of the no-licenso party can bring forward some more practical and . true reforms ‘jvery effort should bo made to stop legislators passing experimental legislation with a bare majority, as was done bv the. last Parliament after the Armis-

tice has been signed, and In face of the bulk of members being returned at the last election pledged not, to interfere with the liquor laws during last Parliament, the liquor laws during last Parliament, which pledges have been flagrantly broken. POSITION I NAMHRICA. A great deal was made at the recent contest ■ about the United States and Canada having adopted prohibition and gone dry. but as a matter of fact these countries are not dry, and President Wilson has recommended Congress to rescind its resolution for war-time prohibition and allow the use of beer and wine. Partial prohibition has been enforced in U.S.A. and Canada the same as in some parts of New Zealand, but it is very problematical if the whole of the States will ever go dry as suggested, for in face of the hostile public opinion (particularly shown by the voting which took place in- Chicago early last month, when there was a majority of quarter of a million votes recorded against prohibition). I venture to say -hut no one can safely predict that total i roMbition ■will become permanently established in the United States. By the present New Zealand legislation tho electors are given a special vote on tho question, of the State taking over all the hotels and breweries .at valuation.. Before this is given effect to adequate safeguards should bo provided to keep the liquor trade distinct from Ministerial or political control. For surclv it must be patent that our politico to-day are in a sufficiently unsatisfactory condition without attaching tho liquor business to them, which unquestionably will become a dangerous source of contamination and every wcll-wishor of this \

Dominion should do his utmost to prevent this occurring. 1 would ask when is this matter to end and how long are w© to tolerate it? Tho present leaders of the prohibition movement have intimated that they are going to inaugurate another campaign in order to again try to enforce tnis immoral and ungodly proposal upon our Dominion. I suggest tho time has arrived when the moderate-minded people of this Dominion should organise and discourage this perpetual turmoil for prohibition which is certain to create worse evils than those complained of. ■*. SOME SUGGESTIONS. Under all the circumstances I suggest the moderate-minded person should use his influence upon the following heads; ; (1) To oppose prohibition as it does not cure the evils of drink. (2) As it is impossible to totally abolish liquor, the best solution to minimise its ovils is to uso one's influence in the direction of obtaining remedial measures and their general application throughout tho Domionion to the present system, such as:— (a) The reasonable restriction of hours in which, liquor is to be sold. (b) That the monopoly in the trade, which is created hv the policy, and action of the prohibitionists should be broken up. and either the question of granting new licenses should bo loft to tho committee or tho, ■ magistrate and police, or that there should bo no new licenses granted In any particular locality if a certain percentage of the bona fide residents in that locality object, exception perhaps being made on routes of travel where there is little or no settlement, but that in tho case of cities

the minimum of one hotel to 1000 inhabitants should not be exceeded. \ (c) To appoint in the chief centres analytical chemists as inspectors,, who shall travel through the country and make surprise visits, and shall have power to seize liquors and have the tested at the expense of tho Crown. Upon a licensee being convicted of having adulterated spirits upon his premises he shall be subjected to heavv penalties. (3) Regarding State ownership and control this should only be favourably considered if it can be absolutely eli minated from politicc, otherwise it will have a serious tendency to contaminate our politics and thus . produce still greater evils than excessive drinking. I am not fully satisfied that the provision in , the present Act by which the Governor-General is to appoint a controller and other officers to administer the-trade in liquor should State purchase bo carried, and who become after their appointment officers of the Department of Justice, is sufficient to avoid the dangers I refer to of mixing the liquor ■ trade up with .politics, for wo know that the Gover-nor-General is tho official mouthpiece of tho Cabinet. But if some reasonable amendment of tho law were, made on .this head to put it into public control and keen it absolutely clear from politics. I do not think'any seriousdanger could arise if State purchase on that basis were adopted, but I would not favour it in preference to the present system if properly administered, and controlled ns already indicated. C4V To use his influence against the return to Parliament of any man who sets himself np as a prohibitionist and claims that prohibition ia a remedy for the ovile of excessive drinking, as

that man should be regarded as an unsound man. and if ho is-unsound on this question who can tell .but that ho will be equally unsound on other great questions? (51 To use his 1 influence against the churches mixing themselves Up with prohibition, because it is unchristian and dishonest. (61 Until the nrohibition party can put some practical reform forward every influence should be brought to bear to remove from the statute book these no-liconse referendum® -which can onlv produce evil results, perpetual- unrest and sectional strife. 1 'RELIANCE. ON-MODERATES.' - I write this memorandum now that the heat of the recent referendum con trovorsv has subsided with the hope that the moderate-minded . people (whom J suggest represent ~,the ..great bulk.-oft the people in this Dominion) ..will impartially weigh up" die position for themselves and if possible adopt'a united course" oi action. for>-tho-time has come when the moderate-minded , people ...cannot afford to stand idfv by, arid allow the prohibitionists to prevail with their sympathetic and impractical arguments, or make political compromises with the trade which will act detrimentally, to the trUc interests of" for ,the pro-, lubitionists must r.44ffS^»,and,,understand that until'they’can bring forward some honest and , practical ■ solution :of the liquor problem ;we must- redouble our energies and strenuously • oppose nil the efforts and . strivings of the-prohibition ists to dominate and ruin this Dominion. tV. DOUGLAS LYSNAR. Gisborne. M,-n- ?:>nd. IfllP.