The Daily News. TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1917. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Taranaki Daily News, 10 April 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1917. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

No one can accuse the British Prime Minister of being lacking in courage. In ■ his conduct of the war 'he has set precedent at naught, and done things that would have astonished, even terrified, the great British public a few years ago. So when he warned a deputatjfcn | advocating prohibition or State purchase of the liquor traffic that it would he "madness to put forth in the middle of the war a proposal defying the whole of organised labor," it can Tao accepted as a fact that the difficulties in the may of the reform are real and considerable. His words carry additional weight by reason of the fact that Mr. Lloyd George has always been a temperance advocate himself. He virtually declares that drastic reform of the liquor traffic must be decided by the people, not by, tho Government, though he says "the Government would earnestly consider control, realising the folly of any measures unless they received general assent." A plebiscite cannot be taken in a time of war, bo that it may be taken for granted there will be no prohibition at Home until the armies are demobilised, but it is quite possible the Government may bring down a schem' of State purchase. Only a few dava ago it was cabled that the only difficulty in the way of State purchase was in agreeing upon a basis of compensation, but surely a Government that has met and overcome so many other and greater difficulties should not be baulked in this reform. If it) has t'he wil\, a •way will be found; of that there can be no doubt. The present Government has already gone some distance in curtailing the drink traffic. Lord Devonport, the Food Controller, Jhas decreed that the materials used in the production of beer shall be restricted by 30 per cent, as from April 1. This will canst, to quote the Controller's order, ''an increase in the amount of barley, eugar and other brewing ingredients available for food purposes; the setting free of tonnage, transport, labor and fuel for purposes other than brewing; and, an increase from 25 to 40 per cent, in the offals used by farmers for the feeding of cattle." Britain's annual beer production in peace time is 30,000,000 bafrels, using up 1,550,000 tons of grain and sugar, or '23 per cent, of the food required to support the nation for a year. Instead of barley and hops jrohJbitionists for the remainder of the

war claim that -wheat could foe grown, or the ships utilised for carrying foodstuffs. "The Strength of Britain Movement" is the name of an organisation that has recently been established to work for prohibition during the war, and it is supported by newspapers and men who never before associated themselves with prohibition, but who feel that the nation simply cannot afford to put beer before the baker's cart when the country has to be rationed to save it from a real food shortage and when the supply of food indeed ia in danger of being cut off. The movement is not an ordinary prohibition movement as we know it in this country; it is a movement dealing with an. emergency, with a crisis never before known in the food supply of Britain. It is not a teetotal policy, but a war policy. The value of food in producing bodily energy is measured in calories, a calory being the unit of heat. The United Kingdom needs a million calories per head per year. The food used in making beer could support eleven millions of the population, or equal to the destruction of t-lio normal food supply of the whole nation for 88 days. These are facts which permit of no argument. But it | is another thing to carry prohibition in a country that is not ready to make the sacrifice in the same sense as Russia and France have both done. The way out is undoubtedly State purchase. Then the State could turn the tap off gradually. As the London Spectator recently said (and the Spectator has always been a stalwart supporter of the Trade), "as long as the element of private profit remains uneliminated, beer and whisky will win. Therefore, as practical people, we are obliged to face the fact that we cannot have the fhings we want —the proper conservation of our dwindling foodstuffs, the proper use of the man-power now taken up in the manufacture), retailing and transport of intoxicants, and the maximum efficiency of labor —unless we buy out the Trade." -Purchase would give the Government a freedom in the matter of dealing iwith intoxicants which in existing circumstances it could obtain iu no other way. Compensation, on a ' basis of the price settled by a Government committee in 1913, would entail upon the Government a charge of seventeen millions a year, a very cheap price indeed. The prohibitionist as we know liim in New Zealand will have nothing to do with State control—ho prefers to , give the Trade the coup-de-grace. But if he could only see it, the quickest way to prohibition is via State control, in i Xc;\v Zealand as in Britain. The public are not yet educated to the point 1 that they will forego alcoholic drink, even in war time, as we see from Mr Lloyd George's observations, but that the trade can be controlled and conditions much improved' under State supervision there is every ground for believing. As we write, a cable arrives ! stating that the Government is apparent- ; ly preparing the. public, for State purchase. The Minister of Labor, following the Prime Minister, says that traditions disapprove of the prohibition or municipalisation, but favor State purchase, which provides against the lure of beer by transforming the public house into a working man's club, with indoor games. Further news of the Government's plans will be awaited with interest.