THE LIQUOR ISSUE.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 January 1919, Page 8

THE LIQUOR ISSUE.

MODERATE LEAGUE MEETING.

A meeting under the auspices of the' New Zealand Moderate .ueague was held in the Empire Theatre iast night. Mr. J. Clarke presided, and there was a good attendance.

In introducing cue speakers the chairman apologised tor the- absence of the Mayor, who would haw presided but for the fact that he- was juat returning from a short vacation. Mr. Clarke said the formation of the- Moderate League was something good to see. For the past fifteen or twenty years the liquor question had been as a battledoor and shuttlecock between the two extreme parties, and the moderate man had had no say, except what was dished out to him. The league represented those who did not support either side. They had a right to have their say, and demanded to be heard.* In the past the Government had been like a pig with a dog at each ear, and had gone with the aide that pulled the hardest. It was time now the moderate section of the community took a hand in things. He then introduced the speakers. Mr. D. M. Findlay, president of the Moderate League, spoke first. He said, there sras a good deal of misconception on the subject, of the liquor question that needed to be dispelled. Up to the present there had been no keen interest in the moderate view of the_ matter. They had had the other side ,well ventilated, but the people had noty heard x the reasons why they should not vote prohibition. There was a good deal 'of objection on the part of prohibitionists to anyone coming forward just now to state the other side of the case. They were content to let American and Canadian lecturers have it all their own way, but the Moderate League was not. The prohibitionists didn't want the other side of the question known. They had tried to gag the press. The Rev. Gray, one of the prohibition speakers, had written to the New Zealand Times stating that no journal was entitled to respect which did not advocate prohibition. This was the thin end of the wedge of intolerance. If the prohibitionists had a good cause they should not be afraid for the other side to be heard. In a sense the representatives of the league appeared at the meeting under protest, because they did not think that this was the time when they should be compelled to come before the people on a subject of the kind. There were matters of a great deal more urgency requiring attention at the present than this question of licensing. There were grievous questions before the country, and yet they w-ere to be embroiled in this question, and their hands and tongues were to be tied except on this question Explaining the difference in effect if prohibition were carried at the April poll or at the poll at the next general election, Mr. Findlay stated that it .would mean only one year's delay, as the old element of four years to wait had now been eliminated', and instead of closing on June 30, 1919, if the referendum were carried in April the hotels would close on June 30, 1920, if the poll were carried in December.

Referring to the consequent less of revenue if prohibition wr.s carried, Mr. Findlay stated that that could be made up only by increased taxation. He had tried to get the political heads of the country to say just how it would be made up, but they evaded any definite statement on the subject. The Efficiency Board said nothing about it in its report, but the Efficiency League of business men said that New Zealand would have to spend £3,000,000 in goods, which would produce £700,000 in duty Then they estimated savings in the expenditure on the Police Department, industrial schools and charitable aid; also reduction in old-age pensions and hospital expenditure All these improvements in the social conditions were to come immediately prohibition was carried, But the savings suggested were purely guesswork. The opinion of people who investigated the matter from a scientific point of view were in the direction that socia' conait'ons were not so vastly improved under prohibition as was often claimed. Mr. Findlay here quoted several authorities in support of that view, showing that drunkenness was a condition of disease and not a cause of it. ! The speaker then referred to the recent epicl-mic, and claimed that alcohol had been responsible for saving many lives, and quoted medical-opinions to the effect that for lack of it some people had died. A voioi: ''What rot.

Mr. Findlay was proceeding along this lin/s when a member of the audience got up and walked out, saying; "I think I'll go and ss* a doctor." (Laughter.) Mr. Findlay claimed that the experience of the recent epidemic had struck the death blow to prohibition so far as the April poll was concerned.

Ha proceeded to state that the Moderate League believed in the l\>forro of the liquof trade in the direction of State ownership, and claimed Mr. Lloyd George as a converted aupporter of that view of the problem In England thiriy million people had come under the influence of State control of the traffic, and drunkenness Bad been reduced by 75 pe.\\ cent. State ownership would mean e. compliance with the law. It would also metan a profit of 10 to 15 per cent, as it had clone in England Referring to the question! of efficiency, Mr Findlay said the prohibitionists' claim that New Zealand was inefficient was contradicted by liei war effort and record. No inefficient eor.iiiiunjily could have done what New Zealand, had done. I

Concluding, the speaker referred to the] goaition of soldiers in relation to the re-\ i'eSsndum. They could not be made aware/ of fhi change in the licensing laws of J the country since they left it. Moreover, j the prohibitionists had arranged that if a majority in New Zealand voted prohibition in April the votes of absent sol- \ diers could not alter such a vote. The only sale thing to do was to wait till December, when the boys would be back, and they could then express their opinions ffa this arm the other questions hi which they would be viially interested. | (Appkuue.i I I Mr S. A. Armsttw.tr, secretary oi the Moderate League, was. the iiext speaker. J He referred to the very rapid progressf of -the last Licensing Kill through Part liitnent The vviieels of the- political I machine had never tun more smooth* ( than when this Liquoi Ml of 75 clausffi i .Ms goinc through the House. The fliii | I w-as acceptable to tin- jirohibitiotiiatsft"'' • imore or less acceptable to the t ;ui.' .Nothing was said at any time on h ha!i of the"moderate section oi' the pi jpic. Not only were politicians stampede* iwiii! forced to legislate i-ccording to th) dei mands of extremists, but the Prohl'HJoii tKariy even made use of Govcwmcnt officials. The Efficiency Board'sreport was little else than the usual/ohibit,:on advertisement, full of vagul generalities and speculative theorisiK about redactions of police, public chariies, etc., that \yould fellow prohibition, (pe point, however, the report was fairJ definite "» ear-it sftjd recoau/nded pro-

hibition because "this view is supported by results obtained in our own country under conditional prohibition." As a eonsequence lie had made a careful investigation of the conditions relating to crime in the no-license areas. He had bused his calculations on an. official report that had ieen laid before Parliament on the o-Mcr of Mr. L. M. Isitt, M.P., as representing the prohibitionists in the House, This disclosed the remarkable fact'that crime generally was greater in the no-license area;:. For ail offences other than drunkenness the proportion per thousand population was, for the whole Dominion 31.5 per thousand, and for the no-license districts 32.2 per thousand. The proportion for murder in the no-license districts was three times greater than in the whole Dominion. Wounding with intent was nearly four times greater in the no-license areas; rape, carnal knowledge, incest, indecent assault, illegitimacy, Infants Act offences and perjury were all greater in proportion in the no-license areas than in the whole Dominion. These and other figures quoted, said the speaker, completely exposed the fallacy of the Efficiency Board's report so far as local Prohibi"- | tion was concerned, and aa this was the 'icmiy point upon which the board committed itself to anything definite, he ~hoped the people would take care, to dis- | count the- airy generalisations which had been used to 'bolster up the Prohibition recommendation.

Mr, Armstrong also referred to the ingenious way in which the Prohibitionists were getting the big business people into their movement—especially the drapers—by telling them of the large sums of money that would be diverted from the liquor trade into their businesses. In consequence the drapers could not get into this movement quickly enough. He appealed to the moderate men not to sacrifice personal liberty on the altar of false ideas. He also referred to the prohibition imposed upon the Canadian soldiers, and showed how the dry habit had grown amongst them, and also -been introduced through them to other places. He reminded the audience of what had been said about the conditions on board the transport Tahiti with the 40th Reinforcements —that lack of stimulants had been responsible for the heavy death roll, and stated that the prohibitionists were responsible for that state of affairs. A voice: Absolute rot!

Continuing, Mr. Armstrong said it would be seen at the poll whether it was rot or not. He concluded by warning those present that the prohibitionists would not stop at the liquor trade if they would that abolished, but would rob the community of al! the liberal pleasures of life, and make it a drab affair not worth living. (Applause.) Someone asked if the speakers would answer questions, and when the chairman, replied that they would not there was some derisive laughter. Mr. Armstrong Btated that questions usually only interested the particular person who asked them, and as the hour was late he would be prepared to give privately any information that anyone might want on any point A voice: Pure bluff!

A vote of thanks to the speakers was carried while the audience was leaving the hall.