STATE CONTROL.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 September 1919, Page 3

STATE CONTROL.

MODERATE LEAGUE CAMPAIGN. ; A LIVELY CONCLUSION. An address was given at the Empire Theatre last night by Mr. K. A, Armstrung (Dominion secretary of the Moderate League) on the question of Stale Purchase and Control of the Liquor Traffic. The chair was taken by Or. J. Clarke., who, in introducing the speaker, said the Moderate League was not a branch of either the Liquor or the Prohibition parties. Too much had been heard from those two sides of the question, and it was time now that the moderate man had his viewpoint placed before the public, and that was what the Moderate League was trying to do. Mr. Armstrong said that, in view of the fact that the electors would soon have to vote on the issue of State purchase and control, and that very few people really understood what it meant, it was important that steps should be taken to enlighten the public mind. STATE OWNERSHIP. He then told how the Moderate League, which was formed in 1914, just, before the outbreak of war, stood in regard to State ownership. It believed that the moderate use of alcohol was. not harmful either morally or physically. In 1915 the league approached the. Government, and asked it to set up a special commission to inquire into the whole of the liquor question, including State purchase and control. Had the Government car. ried out the proposals put before it in 1015 the people of the Dominion would have been in a better position in regard to the liquor question than they were to-day. Mr. Armstrong proceeded to state that, after all the efforts that had been made, it must be plain to reasonable people that there was little hope of prohibition ever being carried in New Zealand. Voices: Question! You can't hoodwink the soldiers again! The speaker replied that, so far as the League was concerned, there had been no hoodwinking of the soldiers before. Ho then spoke of the immediate benefits which would follow Stale purchase and control, pointing out that the element of private profit would be removed. The State would have no interest in encouraging a man to drink, and this must make for improvement, whereas if a pri\-ate owner adopted this attitude it would mean turning away profits. REDUCTION OF LICENSES. In regard to the conduct of the hotels, the first consideration would be the public interest, and the business would be made to respond to public require ments to a much greater extent than at present. While he had always be«n opposed to a reduction in the number of hotels under the system of private ownership, he believed that under State ownership a big reduction could advantageously be made. A redistribution was, necessary, and this could only, be done under State ownership. The prohibition party had stated that State purchase of the liquor interests would involvo an expenditure of £12,000.000 to £20,000,000, whereas it would come, within £10,000,000, and the actual cash outlay would not exceed £8,000,000*. It would not be necessary to borrow to financ the purchase. COST OF STATE PURCHASE. After dealing with the experiment carried out at Carlisle by the British Government, which had resulted in a decrease in the convictions for drunkenness from 953 in 1910 to 80 in 1918, the speaker went into the matter of the estimated cost to New Zealand of State purchase as follows: Number of hotels 1207; land tax values, hotel properties as at March 31, 1915, plus 25 per cent, for undervaluation and improvements during four years, £5,312,<XK); furniture and fittings £900,000; breweries (property, plant, etc.) £750,000; stocks £970,000: termination of trade (as per Act, 1918) —breweries, two years' profits at, say, £200,000, £400,000; hotels, two years' profit at average of £SOO, £1,200,000; wine and spirit merchants, two years' profits (based on value Government Statistician, 15 per cent, net profit) £200,000; wine makers, value of properties, plant, and termination cf trade, say, £so,ooo—total £9,782,500. The cost to the State would be, in round figures, 9f millions; of this properties would be immediately disposable, say, 13 millions, leaving as actual capital investment £8,000,000; of this amount the actual asset values were £6,200,000, so that goodwill was represented by £1,800,000 (two years' profits for termination of trad'e). This amount of £1,800,000 was the only payment made by the State for which it did not get actual realisable value in return. The net profits under private ownership were estimated to be, per annum, £900,000. To this must be added the rental value of hotel properties, which the State, as owner, could be relieved from paying (say. 5 per cent, on 4£ millions), £212,500, leaving the State's profit, on a conservative estimate and without allowing for increased efficiency in management, concentration, and economies of non-competitive business, as, per annum, £1,112,500. Annual interest payable on capital must be deducted—eight* millions at, say, 5 per cent., £4oo,ooo—leaving £712,500 to be utilised, if thought, fit, for immediate liquidation of capital in such proportion as sound finance dictates; or, if this consideration be determined in the usual way by a sinking fund of, say, 2 per cent, as an annual charge agn'inst profits £IOO,OOO, the annual amount available for appropriation for public purposes would be £502,500. To (his must be added the fact that the State revenue from liquor of £1,000,000 per annum would continue undisturbed. INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC. Mr. Armstrong stated that the interests of the public were adequately preserved under the Act in regard to the amount to be paid for the busine»s by the fact that that would rest entirely with the Courts of Compensation, and no appeal would lie against their decision in any other court, although the Court of Compensation might, if it thought fit, on any question of law arising, state a ease for determination of that question by the Supreme Court, such determination to be subject to appeal by either Crown or claimant to the Appeal Court, It would thus be seen that the Court of Compensation had very full and almost arbitrary . powers. VALUE OF ALCOHOL. The speaker related at some length I the conclusions come to by a special board of scientists set up by the British Government to investigate the scientific aspect of the use of alcohol which went to show, according to the report from which he quoted, that alcohol unquestion--1 ably ww pJ<*A Ift pi* mu>B that it, can

he used to supply a considerable proportion of the fuel needs of the body. While warning against excessive indulgence, the commission stated that tem. perate consumption of alcoholic liquors might to considered to he physiologically harmless in the case of the large majority of normal adults. The report represented the unanimous opinion of the eminent scientists who formed the com- | mittee of investigation.

He concluded with an appeal to the prohibitionists to take the opportunity offered of accomplishing a real measure of temperance reform, and to all to approach the question divested of all the old prejudices associated with it. The chairman stated that if there were any questions to be asked Mr. Armstrong would be pleased to do his best to answer them. A LIVELY CONCLUSION. Mr. Bellringer asked if the same results achieved at Carlisle in regard to reduced drinking were, not also to be seen in some measure all over England at the same time on account of the very mucii reduced hours of trading fixed by the Board of Control, to which Mr. Armstrong replied that he believed the result was largely due to the operation of the powers exercised by the Board of Control. Another questioner, who referred to the Moderate League as the mouthpiece of the liquor party, amidst cries of "Hear, hear," brought the chairman to his feet with an emphatic: "That is not so!" The questioner then asked if Mr. Porbes-Eadie, who circularised the soldiers who returned to New Zealand just before the last poll, had done so with the authority of the Moderate League, or if he was in any way connected with it Mr. Armstrong replied th'at he was not connected with the league. Mr. Cocker then roue to propose a vote of thanks to the speaker ior his address, and referred to it as a camouflage and one of the best arguments for prohibition that he had heard.

Mr. Armstrong rose with a protest against "this man" using his hall and meeting for the purpose of making a prohibition speech. His remarks as <o his address being a camouflage li ' .1; as an insult, but said it was the usual exhibition of prohibitionist tactics. Cries of "No!"

The chairman rose, and said that as Mr, Cocker had couched his motion of thanks in terms that were so repugnant to Mr. Armstrong that he could not accept it, he miißt ask Mr. Cocker to sit down. Cries of "Oh!"

Mr. Lightband thou proposed a vote of thanks to Mr. Armstrong and congratulated him on having the courage of his opinions, and was proceeding to eulogise the benefits of State control when the chairman rose and asked him to confine himself to the matter of thanks to the speaker. There were then cries in the hall of "Which side is this man on ?" Mr. Cocker then rose again to defend himself, but was ruled out of order. He persisted in getting in a question as to the food value of alcohol and the report of the eommi93ion which Mr. Armstrong had quoted from. Another member of the audience then rose and moved an amendment to the vote of thanks that, while the meeting thanked Mr. Armstrong for his address, it WB3 of opinion that. State control was not in the interests of any State. The chairman refused to accept the amendment.

A seconder to the aniendjnent rose with a protest, and held that it'embraced the thanks, but expressed a want of confidence in the aims and platform of the Moderate League. The chairman still persisted in his refusal to accept the amendment, and said the meeting was not for the purpose of discussing the Moderate League, find he was not <joiiig to allow any man to make a fool of him and the meeting. He then ordered the speaker to sit down.

There was considerable amusement nt the position, and amidst it the vote was taken and declared carried by the chairman.

On Mr. Armstrong's motion, a vote of thanks to the chairman was carried by acclamation, Mr. Armstrong remarking that he believed the majority of the audience, appreciated the way in which Mr. Clarke had conducted the meeting and endeavored to secure a fair hearing for one who was a visitor to the tov n.