THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 April 1917, Page 7

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Knowing your open-minded attitude towards all progressive movements, I feel sure you will allow me a few remarks on your leading article this morning. Perhaps I ought, in the first place, to explain the position of the Prohibitionist generally, and then as to his opposition to a State-conducted trade in intoxicating drinks. The term "prohibition" is a butt for a great many, especially for the man who does not know much about the subject, and does not enquire. The early advocates of the 110license movement were in America chiefly, and at a time when the anti-slavery reformers were active. These latter called themselves "Abolitionists," and that is what the former were, and are, only they could not use the term "abolition," so they said "prohibition." As a matter of fact, prohibition was the law long befora these agitators against the liquor trade came into prominence. Our law to-day is a law of prohibition, with exceptions; all that the, so-called, prohibitionist asks is that there be "no exceptions. He says that if the trade be a benefit to the public then let it bo as free as any other trade; if it be it menace to the public weal then let it be abolished without any of these exceptions in favor of certain persona, places, days and hours. Of course, we can well see the difficulty the earliest "Prohibitionists" had, in that, while they saw the harm that came from drinking, they thought that there was a certain benefit and thought their beer was food and their distilled spirits a true eau-de-vie —a water of life. But the time of that ignorance has passed- away, or is doing so very rapidly. To-day none who have studied the question from a scientific stand-point defend the use of intoxicating drinks. However, there are no doubt many who are not quite satisfied with the scientific facts referred to who would be willing on purely patriotic grounds to do without their drink as long as the war lasts. That was proposed in the early days of the war, and the King set the example with not a very large following. It is different now that more than two and a-half years of war has made a change in the way at which thev look on a patriotic dry period. The chief point of your leading article is an advocacy of what is called State Control, meaning thereby a State-owned drink trade. ' State control we are supposed to have ' now, but it is not satisfactory. Certain ' persons are not to be supplied, but they ' are, and other well-intentioned regula- ' tions. have been made with only very, 1 poor'results. The prohibitionist objects ' to this State-conducted drink trade for many reasons. He is now in a measure, but against his will, a partner in the ' business through the license. If it were ' a State-trade liq would be a compulsory ' shareholder. He would rather see all ' State monetary interest in the trade done away with, and let our public ! revenue be altogether free from any r liquor revenue.. Opponents say that the prohibitionist has a spile against the liquor trader. Nothing of the sort. It is against the liquor trade as an injurious trade that he protests; and though St. Patrick or St. George, or St. Andrew kept the shop he would be against it. There is only one- way to mend the drink habit and trn.de, and that is to end it. am. etc., GEO. H. MAUNDER. April 10, 1017.