“Dry” Propaganda Refuted

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 503, 5 November 1928, Page 14

“Dry” Propaganda Refuted

PROHIBITION ASSAILED

Facts Versus Sentiment

( Published by Arrangement) BRILLIANT aucl intellectual oratory was the feature of an address delivered by Mr. Fred. Arlington-Burke, the well-known speaker and debater. Not only did he uphold his reputation as one of the finest orators of the day, but he brought to bear many new and decidedly convincin'* arguments against Prohibition. His statement that sixteen different Governments had tried and then repealed it made a strong impression upon the large audience present. He also scored another decisive note by repeating the words of the leading Prohibitionist speaker, namely, Mr. Finlayson, ex-M.P., of Australia, who stated in the Town Hall a fortnight ago, to “Dry” supporters: •We must get back to the voluntary pledge-signing campaign of the old days.

the outset Mr. Burke stated that no honest person could deny that certain evils were traceable to the abuse of liquor; yet, though admitting that regrettable fact, he failed to see why the commodity should be blamed, instead of the individual who abused it. The “drys” exaggerated out of all proportion the said evils, but he appealed to electors to look around them and see for themselves what an insignificant minority drank to excess. “Is it necessary to bring the people of this community to a state of sobriety?” he asked. “1 think the answer to that is reflected in the fact that among this audience here to-night there is no one person the worse for liquor.” He was, he said, hot advocating that people should drink intoxicating liquors, but he was opposed to compulsion by legislation on the subject of Prohibition. The liquor referendum w-ould be decisive, but if, as he anticipated, continuance is carried by an overwhelming majority, the Prohibitionist's position would be unchanged. They would not be forced to drink, even in moderation, but if Prohibition is carried those people who desire to take a drink occasionally will be compelled, if it is possible, to stop the drinking of the social glass. The present voting paper is iniquitous, in that it does not provide for the moderate drinker, forcing that large body of electors into association with the extremists. One of the outstanding facts presented by the speaker was that .5 of 1 per cent, of the people of New Zealand abuse alcoholic liquor. This, he said, was surely irrefutable evidence that the nation was not besotted with drink, if such evidence were needed. USELESS ACT “What is the Act of Parliament going to do?” asked Mr. Burke, and proceeded to show that it was designed to eradicate the drunkard, but disregards the moderate section of the community. The community is not at fault, as the Prohibitionist contends, but rather the person who abuses the commodity. The Act does not touch the teetotaller, for NoLicence or Licence, he is still a teetotaller. The moderate section is the one who is penalised. The drunkard is the one who will go to the chemist or doctor for a tonic—and thus he gets alcoholic liquor. Those who abused liquor were mentally weak and lacked self-con-trol. Theirs was a case for the scientist, not the politician. The individual was at fault and not the commodity. The clergyman should be the last person to call upon the brute force of the law to impose his will. He should appeal to the conscience of the men and women in his community. The ministers of all the churches should honestly stick to theology, and refrain from turning their pulpits into political soap-boxes. He had no quarrel with them as theologians, and he had no sectarian bitterness. SELF-CONTROL

“To carry prohibition,” declared Mr. Burke, “ is an admittance to the world that New' Zealanders lack self-control and require sumptuary legislation to enable them to live decent lives.” The speaker asked his audience what result partial Prohibition (6 o’clock closing) had had in the Dominion. The result was an increase of bottled beer sold, and everyone knew the hipflask was the accessory to most dance parties. There had been a definite increase in drinking among young people. Another aspect was that if any commodity were prohibited it immediately assumed a false, increased value due to the curiosity created. Every teetotaller was a living proof that self-control was necessary, and every crowded “dry” meeting proved that individuals and not liquor itself made for sobriety. Six o’clock closing had not produced the millennium that the Prohibitionists forecasted. ECONOMIC ASPECT Dealing with the economic aspect, Mr. Burke said the duty on liquor amounts in this Dominion to nearly £2,000,000 annually. By adopting Prohibition that revene would practically vanish. Where would the Government look to replace it. The primary producer is already tax'ed to his utmost. Secondary industries are

in their infancy, and therefore could not be expected to stand raxing, ths only avenue is the cost of living, ao( | that, goodness knows, is high enough The Prohibitionist's advocacy j a " merely sentimental bunkum, otherwise they would provide that revenue end enable Mr. Coates to give employment to the many people already unabi* to get work. A total of 35,000 at pre» ent employed in the trade would also have to be found employmenL The politician of tp-day is merely a politician and not a statesman, and thus is susceptible to the influences of sectional influences. Hence the triennial polls when licensees, who have a considerable stake invested in property and goodwill, have to fight hard every three years to combat the attempt, to ruin them by people who stand to lose nothing. • There are 4,000,000 people in America unemployed—“on the breadline,” as it is termed—and this after tea years of Prohibition. Does that sound like the millennium promtsed by tha Prohibitionists. In conclusion the speaker pointed out that Prohibition had come in on a wave ten years ago, which had been brought about by the neurotic state of the peoples of various countries owing to the war. The minds of the people were unbalanced at the time of the adoption of Prohibition, which had swept practically half of the world, but since its adoption saner counsels had prevailed, and its fallacy had been exposed by actual experience. It had been tried, weighed in the balance and found wanting. Rather, it had been found that with the so-c-alted abolition of liquor, worse evils had arisen, and to-day America stood alone on the question. If the people of America were given a direct vote on the question to morrow, Prohibition would go by tha board. It was his Arm conviction that this year New Zealand would crush the cry for Prohibition right out of existence. (Applause.)

Questions were asked and answered satisfactorily.