THE LICENSING BILL

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 157, 12 October 1910, Page 3

THE LICENSING BILL

Iw.SS CRITICISM. (Wellington Dominion.). The figures recorded in connection with' local option polls since 1596 are probably responsible for the approval which has been accorded the new Licensing Bill by eertaiin of the leaders of the No-license movement. The growth in the number of votes cast for Xo-License has been very remarkable when noted in conjunction with the increase in the number of persons on the electoral rolls. This will be clearly seen from the following table:, Persons Votes for Votes for. Year. on roll eont'nee No-license 1890 339.230 139,580 98,313 I 1899 373,744 142,443, W8,570 j MO* 415.759 148.449 101,024 | VM 470.473 IS2,SS4 108,708 j 11)08 537.003 188.140 221,471 | U the last local option poll, that is in iiOS, the total number of votes record d, wis 421'593. Anvone who chooses to wok out the proportion of no-h.ense vote to this total will see that it was only lone 3000 votes short of the 55 per cent reared under the Bill now mtroduced to'"nv national prohibition. No/°ubt this in'a large, measure accounts for the attitude of those no-license leaders who SvTlhe Bill They believe> «Pg™£ that all thev have to do is to get those few thousand extra votes to enforce prohibition throughout Xew Zealand. I this is their way they fact that the 241.471 persons who vot.d no case, to vote "no-liquor'V-a very d.flerent proposition indeed. Under nodtcense ■ 0,/ who wanted.liquor could ob am it.. Under this Bill, if it passes into law everyone who votes no-license vote no-liquor. How many of the 221,4*1, ,3 cense voters will do this? How many of those even in existing no-hcens- * e<- \ torates will vote against rest oration, when it means also no-aquor? These questions are, of course, impossible to | answer now, -but when it is borne m m i„d that a'very substantial proportion! of those who vote no-license are not pro-, hibitionists in the full meaning of the word it will be seen that the figures of, the past afford a very unreliable guide to, the future under the changed conditions, proposed by the Licensing Bill Moreover, the position is fertile , complicated bv the absurd and illogical | form of the issues to be submitted on the ballot-paper. (Wellington Times). So far as we are able to see the Bill represents from start to finish a series of concessions to the prohibitionists and will require very considerable modification before being acceptable to a very great section of the community. The legislation now on the Statute Book does not m to the extent of giving, one body of citizens authority to declare that a man shall not, if he chooses,-drink a glass of beer, but this Bill proposes to give them this authority in a very thoroughgoing fashion. Hitherto 60 per cent, of the voters have had the power to check the issue of licenses in electoral districts, but individuals were left freedom to fram? their own rules of conduct so far as personal abstinence was concerned. "his Bill places in the hands of 55 per cent, of the adult population a legal weapon bv which rules of personal habit may be framed for the remainder. In addition to abstaining themselves they will be able to mate other people, who are competent to order their lives in other wavs, practice this virtue whether thev want to or not. It is perhaps too late—or is it too earlv?—to take exception to prohibitory legislation of this character, but the moment is opportune to point out to the country that this Bill proposes a complete change in the scope of licensing laws with which the people are familiar. These aim mainly at controlling the issue of licenses; tue Bill goes far beyond this, and introduces the prohibition feature on a margin little over a bare majority. Dominion prohibition becomes the central feature, with: local censorship over licenses as a second j string to the voter's bow.

Mr. X. T. Maunder writes to the 'Editor:—-"Sir—May I be allowed to ex-| press regret that in your otherwise pro-, oressive paper you siiould advocate such' a retrograde step as State control of the liquor traffic in face of the fact that the foremost men of to-day ace out, not, to control this uncontrollable thing, but to oust it from society. Is there not a. tinge of insincerity, not to say hypo-| erisy, in our attitude towards this thing as compared with out attitude towards, opium ? Opium being the pet vice of the ' Chinese, and not ours, we are able to see it in its ugly deformity and take drastic measures to deal with it without any compunction. We fine a Chinaman £IOO for simply .having it in his possession in certain forms, but with alcohol it is different, being our own pet fancy. We prolVss to admire the heroic efforts of the Chinese Government to break loose from this terrible vice. We do not sug-i gest ''control," but we say "prohibit" every time. In what way do we differ from them? Is alcohol less dangerous than opium, less deceptive, less degrading, that we unanimously condemn the one, and look round for palliatives for! the other? What is the meaning of the' general agitation that now is causing, the civilised world to rise in revolt against this social tyrant? Is it not; because we are awakening to a right understanding of this drug, and, under the leadership of scientific enquiry, coming to recognise the delusion under which we have labored so long as to its supposed benefits? Who is there of any standing in the world of thought that has attempted to refute the statements and facts contained in that damning indictment of alcohol given to the world ini Horsley and Sturge's great work, "Alcohol and the Human Body?" Is it not control that we want? It is stamping out, not so much by legal enactments as by the exercise of that quality of discipline and true patriotism which has, made the Anglo-Saxon race what they' are, the greatest people under the sun. I I think your conclusion that "non-tee-j totallers" "vote for the destruction of a monopoly and not for the destruction of the goods the monopoly! sells" is a fallacious one. It is not the nionopoly or the huge profits, but we are out'to banish this thing from our social order and deliver our people from the delirious infatuation which now holds' them captivated; to arrest, if not turn back, the deterioration of our race which is so much lamented in many quarters, And this crusade is not confined to a few teetotal fanatics, but is very largely' supported by the moderate drinker, as j evidenced by the Licensing Bill now before Parliament."