CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 February 1916, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

LICENSING MATTERS. To the Editor. ■Sir, —Eefore that deputation of licensed liquor-dealers (tlicy are not really "victuallers," only that in legal phrase) waited on Hon. ■lames Allen, they should have considered what is the chief object of government. The chief object of government is to protect and to promote the real welfare of Hie people; and from this it is evident that if any business is detrimental to that welfare it must stand aside, even though it may be as wealthy, as politically influential and as old-established as the liquor trade. It is quite wrong' for the licenced dealers in strong drink to assume that the prohibition party has any desire to "penalise" them or to do them harm; but it is quite true that the party aim at the abolition of the liquor trade, and that solely in the interests of the nation, and not for any private or party profit; nor, as it seems the deputation assumes, with any ill-will against them individually or as a body of traders. It is the usual conservative cry whenever any reform is proposed that touches any trade or profession, "our craft is in danger." We have heard even lawyers, doctors, teachers and even bakers strongly protest when any reforms touching their occupations have been proposeel, but they all forget the principles of good government as mentioned above,* and that it is the duty of good citizens to bow to the new ways that are for the public relfare. There is, of course, tins great difference between legal interference with the lawyers, doctors, teachers and bakers in that they are absolutely necessary to the community, in some form, and the proposals as affecting them are only regulative. In the case of the liquor traders it is undoubtedly a question of extinction —prohibition absolute—even though regulation be used as helps thereto. And why should it not lie allowable for a "certain portion of the community to nuke use of the war in order to- advance the claims of prohibition?" The war has in many ways shown the evil that results-, from drinking and from the temptations that the licensed houses present to the peop>, soldiers especially. If the war had in any way shown any good the liquor trade had done the country it is quite certain that the advocates and defenders of the trade would have brought it all before the Minister by their deputation; and, in fact, the world at large would be quickly informed if any keen-eyed supporter' of the trade had found out that it had done any good at all. Out of the budget of evidence against the trade it is worth while to learn something from the recent soldiers' riot at Casula Camp. Without the liquor, no doubt, the,.men would never have 'been so unpatriotic as to object to the reasonable increase in the hours of drill, and if they thought it was excessive they would have presented th,eir grievance to the proper authorities, and have accepted a fair arrangement. However, according to your report of the riot. as. in Thursday's paper, "hundreds of the men were obviously intoxicated and quite irresponsible." and then, further on, towards evening, "The Government's proclamation for the closing of hotels at 7 p.m. had a big effect. Bobbed of the spirit that egged them on the .men seemed '.n lose their cohesion, and out of their thousands they could not effect anything like organisation." The evil resulting from the drinking, on which the liquor trade exists, are being shown up by the war and war preparations in this country and in Britain, while on the other hand the benefits of abstinence, even compulsory abstinence on account of prohibition, as in Russia, or by restriction of the hours of trade, as in Britain, are all equally manifest to all who are willing to learn. But to revert to that deputation. No one is likely to take the Minister or Defence for a convinced prohibitionist, and vet he has had to be that in some small degree when he prohibits drink on troop trains, as well as in camps. Then, too, his-reply in some mneoos is ominous, for he says that "a strong feeling" might take hold of the community and then 'lie did not know what would happen." Yes! Mr. Allen, it is coming! Yes! Mr. Myers, it is coming! And when the day comes that there are. no more houses licensed to sell intoxicants you, as true patriots, will gladly agree to what is for the welfare of the nation. —I am, etc., GEO. M. MAUNDER. ABOUT COLLECTIONS. (To the Editor.) Sir,—l wouhl like to give organisers of collections a little advice. It is: Don't divulge the amounts given by cheques. everyone does not possess a cheque-book and some of those who do and other subscribers prffor to distribute their amounts amongst the various collectors, and probably give a great deal more than the man with the cheque-book. It is not pleasant to hear from the collector when you have dropped in your mite: "Oh, I've just got a cheque from for £l." Organisers of the collections would do well if they advised their collectors not to divulge the individual amounts they receive. It is a different matter when lists of all subscribers are being jjivon like the Mayor's and Newspaper Funds. —I am, etc., SUBSCRIBER.