THE ISSUE ON LIQUOR.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 19, 10 June 1914, Page 6

THE ISSUE ON LIQUOR.

TlllO SrN.Sinvs IUI,U ' ''! TIM' ~|-:.'-T I'IIMMISED p.y THE ■">!>!!•; MINISTER. Christchurch, Juno 8. Member; of Mic Prohibition party in C'-uitorbnry in force thia morning, wire!' ' deputation waited upon the Primp Minister to impress upon him tlin desirability of having the question of tli« abolition of Hie sate of alcoholic liquor settled h- an absolute majority vote' of the people. The deputation, which was introduced hv Mr IT. 0. Ell, M.P.. advocated the rcst-isinn of the. tlivuo-fifths majority principle, and failiiif? that, ashed that the Government should do all in its power to push on its proposed Hill to reduce the necessary majority for National Prohibition to fifty-five per cent. THE DEPCTATION'. Mr Ell said that the deputation represented all the prohibition bodies of the province. He pointed out that, at the. last election, fifty-three per cent of the electors had voted for National Prohibition. This showed that a very substantial majority of the people was in favor of the proposal. •Mr. L.-M. Isitt, M.P., said that, from • what 'he knew of Parliament and its procedure, it would be. much better if they went for reduction on one proposal. TTnlf a loaf was better than no [bread.' lie did not think that the Bill I would go through if it were too swecpI ing in its proposals, but if they were to 'confine their attention to one issue, they ■ h:;d fur more chance of success. !'!'!.\lK MINISTER'S ANSWER. In the coaise of his reply, the Prime Minister said that he was not a Prohibitionist, although be belonged to the Temperance, party, lie was heartily in record with what Mr. Isitt had said, with regard to putting two issues before Parliament, as some of the speakers had advocated. If he were to do that he was honestly of opinion that both issues would go out by a. majority of ten in the Lower House, and the Bill would be killed as dead as Julius Caesar. He, however, wanted to give the Bill a chance. (Hear, hear.) So far as ho was able to judge it would pass its second reading. When it came to the Committee stage, which was even more important, any iiicnibjjr had the right, to move an amendment so long as it wa« reasonable and relevant, [t was the right of every member to test the feeling pf the House such a question, so long as his amendment was not frivolous. The question could not.be made a party one. as members on,both sides • of the House had given pledges in different ways. Some, were reductionists, some were not. lie would ask r.o man to break his pledge. At the present there was nothing' in the bill to reduce the limit of four years left to (he trade to close up their business after .the carrying of National Prohibition. The financial aspect of the ca.se was also worthy of very serious consideration. If National Prohibition were carried, it would make a very great difference to the financial arrangements of the country. At the present time the revenue from alcoholic liquors was about £900,000 annually, and, if Prohibition were carried, this amount would have to be collected somehow or another, there would be an increase in taxation either directly or indirectly. Of course it would be fir Parliament to say how it should be got. Then the people engaged in the trade would have to be considered. Whatever they might thinkof the question, they must be fair to those who had capital invested in the business, and they niiisl give time to those \yinployed in it to I'uid other work. Surely these people were worth considering. He could promise that the Bill would be introduced early in the session, probably in the first or second week, but he did not sav that it would be pushed through in the, early stages of the session. . There were many thines to take up the time and attention of the House, but he would see that the Bill j was dealt with as carle as possible. I (Hear, hear.) They could be certain | that there would be no unnecessary deMay. He had pledged himself to give the ;House an opportunity of dealing with the question, and the House would get it. He himself did not lake up with either of the extreme parties, although ,he was on the side of (he temperance. 1 At the same time he could ,say this: That , three-fourths of the brewers" of the Doiminion were arrayed against the Government, so he was not g'oing in the in- ] terests of the brewers. The Hill would jbe gone on with, and would hive a straight run through, so far as he was [concerned. He believed that it would pass through the Lower House, but lie did not know what would happen in the 'other place. He did not know what 'pledges the members of the Council had made, but, from what he understood, the Bill would have a straight run then' also.