TWELVE QUESTIONS

Taihape Daily Times, 14 March 1919, Page 5

TWELVE QUESTIONS

FOR THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE. o 1. Why did the Members of the House who were in favour of Prohibition ever allow a Bill to go through the House giving the Trade -if years' notice before Prohibition (if carried by those in the country in favour of it) could bo effective?

2. Was the Ncw Zealand Alliance a party to this agreement? 3. Did Sir Joseph Ward, as Colonial Treasurer, sta.te that the revenue received from the Liquor Traffic was roughly .111,000,000 par annum, and that it would take him 4 t years to adjust his finance; and is, this the origin of the £4,500,000 which figures as compensation to the Trade?

4. If this is the fact, how can this sum,- which, is compensation for loss of roovnue' to the Consolidated Fund :of the country, logically, in any sense, be turned round and be made a sum suffiicient in any way to compensate the Trade! when no basis whatever has been arrived at. as data on which to estimate such compensation? 5. Does not this explain why the Members of the House are in such a fog as to why £4,500,000 or any other sum (witlnn a £1,000,000, as suggested by Sir Joseph Ward) should bo the sum they inserted in the Bill?

| (!. If this haphazard sum. arrived at 1 in such a way by members improperly | allowing a year’s license to the Trade I to be extended to 41 years, was acceptI od by the Efficiency Board, is that any i reason for the people to whom the issue will be submitted accepting it also? I 7. Is not. the usual trade custom for the PURCHASE of the goodwill of any business, mostly on the basis of one year’s profits, and, if so, why should “not exceeding two years’ profits” be the basis for the COMPENSATION of the Liquor Trade? S. Why do the Canadian delegates

come hero to advocate compensation, when in their own. country, and in the United Btut ‘s .Prohibition was. is. and will be carried by legislative enactment without compensation? ft Do they consider that what is

possible for them is impossible here? 10. Why is a sum of £200,000 necessary as a fighting fund in a democratic country of .1,000,000 inhabitants with 600,000 votes?

11. Why does the New Zealand Alliance forsake principle and endeavour to buy reform ? 12. Would their predecessors, who had no £200,000 fighting fund, but plenty of fighting, have accepted such base (less) compromise? (Published by arrangement.)