A “TRADE” DEPUTATION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 60, 2 July 1914, Page 6

A “TRADE” DEPUTATION.

FULL STATEMENT OF .THEIR CASE. [Peb Pekss Association.] Wellington, July 2. A deputation consisting of several hundred people representing liquor interests waited on the Premier this morning. The. deputation was introduced by Mr Statham, M.P. The first speaker. AVga,Mj? A* E. Kernot, representing the Wellington wine and, spirit merchants, who said they, had come for the purpose of. emphasising the dangers that threaten the public weal and national credit if the demands 6f the prohibition party were even favorably considered. The “trade” contributed nearly a million pounds to the public revenues, and in view of the fact that they had fifteen millions invested in property they felt that no apology was necessary for placing their views before the Government. They claimed: (1) That the people should know what new taxation was likely to be imposed if prohibition was carried; (2) that no majority less than threefifths was entitled to decide; (3) that seven years should expire before houses are closed under Dominion option; (4) that some provision be made for those thrown out of employment if prohibition is carried. Mr A. Bankhart (Auckland Brewers’ Association) contended that the prohibitionists had nothing at stake and were merely fighting for sentiment. But they were attacking the businesses of neighbours, threatening the country’s commerce and the individual rights and privileges of the people. It was doubtful if any majority had a right to dictate to a minority what it should eat or drink. The speaker also complained of ambiguity in the wording of the Dominion ballot paper and asked that the issue be put to the people in the plainest terms. Mr J. B. Thompson (Invercargill) controverted figures quoted by the No-License deputation as to the effect of No-License in “dry” areas, claiming that their .statistics did not bear out the claims of the Prohibitionists. Mr J. Beveridge (Christchurch), rpp r esenting the Licensed Victuallers’ Association, contended that in view of the trend of public opinion Parliament had no mandate from the country to .abate one iota of the majority required under the existing legislation. Air Massey replied upon the lines of his answer to the No-License deputation. He congratulated the deputation upon the concise, businesslike representation of their views. He believed both sides should have an opportunity to express their views both to 'Ministers and to M.P.’s. A Bill would be before Parliament in a few days. He hoped there would be no strong feeling on either side. The Bill was the same as last year, but the Government desired not to make it a party measure. Fair play would be given to both sides.