TWELVE QUESTIONS

Taihape Daily Times, 15 March 1919, Page 5

TWELVE QUESTIONS

FOE THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE. o j. Why did the Members of the House who were in favour iof Prohibition wer allow a Bill to go through the House giving the Trade 4t years’ notice before Prohibition (if carried by (hose in the country in favour of it) could be effective? 2. Was the New Zealand Alliance a party to this agreement? Did Sir Joseph Ward, as Colonial Treasurer, state that the revenue received from the Liquor Traffic was roughly £1,000,000 per annum, and that it would take him 4) 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 reovnuo to the Consolidated Fund iof the country, logically, in any sense, be turned round and be made a sum sufficient in any way to compensate the Tradd when no basis whatever has been arrived at. as data on. which to estimate such compensation?

5. Does no! this explain why the Members of the House are in such a fog as to why f t,500.000 or any other sum (within a £1.000,000. as suggested by Sir Joseph Ward) should be the sum they inserted in the Bill? (5. If this haphazard sum, arrived at in such a way by members improperly allowing a year’s license to the Trade to be extended to U years, was accepted by the Efficiency Board, is that any reason for the people to whom the issue will be submitted accepting it also? 7. Is not the usual trad* 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 tho 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 Stales Prohibition was, is, and will be carried by legislative enactment without compensation? ff. Do they consider that what is possible for them is impossible here?

Ift. Why is a sum of £200,000 necessary as a fighting fund in a democratic country of 1,000.000 inhabitants with ftOO.OOft votes? 11. Why does the New Zealand Alliance forsake principle and endeavour io buy reform? 12. Would their predecessors, who had no £200.000 fighting fund, But plenty of fighting, have accepted such base floss') compromise? (Published by arrangement.)