THE LICENSING QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 262, 11 December 1909, Page 2

THE LICENSING QUESTION.

HAS FAITH BEEN BROKEN? NO-LICENSE PARTY'S DEFENCE. By Telegraph,—Press Association. Wellington, Friday. In reply to the strictures of the Trade, the No-License Party .put their side of the question in to-night's Post. The statement, which is made by the Revs. Dawson and Dewdney, says: Dr. Findlay, at the instance of the Premier, approached the officials of the party to know if there was any hope ol modification of the party's demands which might result in a possible working basis on certain points regarded as vital by both sides, such as the question o( majority, Dominion option, the effect of prohibition, and the time when the vote of the people should take effect. The Government knew what the demands of

the temperance party were, for they were embodied in a Bill on die order paper, and they did not ask that that party should surrender any vital principle, but with a view to what was legislatively possible Dr. Findlay asked for an "irreducible minimum" on the points named. The temperance party understood that he was already in such touch

witb the liquor party as to cause him to believe that they were likely to consider the points in such a way as might make legislation possible. Upon receiving request, which was ieunder tihe seal of confidence, the officers of the Alliance put themselves into communication with the leaders of the-party in different parts of the Dominion, and finally Mr. Spr.igg and the Revs. Dawson "and Dewdney were appointed by the executive to consult with Dr. Findlay. ■ At the first interview Dr. Findlay submitted the demands of t/he liquor party as follows: 1. No poll in 1911 nor until 1914. 2. Dominion prohibition and local option with 55-lOOths majority; dominion vote not to take effect for six years; local option not to take effect for three years; or Dominion prohibition by bare majority not to take effect for six years; no-license by threefifths majority not to take effect for two years. 3. Eliminate reduction issue. 4. Three issues on oallot-paper— (a) continuance, (b) no-license, (c) Dominion prohibition; no voter having the right to vote for more tlian one issue.

These proposals the no-license delegates declined to discuss. After many interviews an agreement as published was arrived at. After Deing considered by the executive of the Alliance, its representatives were authorised to si«.i. I'.ull details could not be stated in precise legal phraseology, and solicitors <- presenting each 6ide were appoint' ! to aet with Dr. Findlay. The l'c-piesenta-tiv«B of the executive had not been able to consult with the whole party, but felt they would be able to secure its end or some of the points agreed on. The Alliance representatives agreed "to further •til means in their power tfhe passage into law of the agreement." That meant that they undertook to secure, as far as possible, the support of the party, "and we desire to make it very clear that as signatories to the agreement we have to the utmost of our power (honorably endeavored to carry out its terms .Personally we are still prepared to stand by those terms.'

The party endorsed every item hut one of the agreement. It did not think it a right thing to run the risk of compelling a man to vote for what he did not want in order to secure \Aat he did want, or else compel him to refrain from voting, and therefore asked for separate ballot-papers. Every other item, though it meant a surrender of a great deal, the party accepted. The representatives of the executive do not think the point a crucial one, and that in any case the memorandums of agreement were not in force in a legal document. Further, on this paificular point they felt they had no right to insist upon' overridin« the wishes of the majority. "