LABOR ON PROHIBITION.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 October 1921, Page 6

LABOR ON PROHIBITION.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In your issue of the Ist inst. we are treated to what two Labor members of the House of Commons have to say about prohibition in America. They say they started out with a friendly feeling towards that movtment, only they changed their minds, but it would be well to mark what accompanied the change. They fell in with drinking people, cautious drinkers who avoided certain exceptionally bad drinks, yet were all drinkers. Our Labor M.P.’s were, on their own admission, drinkers, and apparently not overburdened with any desire to observe the law of the country where they were guests. If men came to New Plymouth with that temper, and fell into the company of those who had not much respect for law, but wanted personal liberty, they would be able to report that our laws were broken, especially with regard to the sale -c-f drink, even in this country where the tradjj’is licensed; and that the laws regarding licensed gambling were broken, and while men can gamble in a legal way they also want to do a little outside the law; and if the regulations attached to the licensee are too strict, they take it upon themselves to interpret the law in a way that suits themselves. They cry out for liberty, yet what they want is individual license, and not human liberty. Let us, however, hear what American Labor has to say about prohibition. The “Literary Digest” of New York invited 526 duly elected officials of unions, representing 4,000,000 workers, to answer the question, “Has prohibition been a benefit to working men and their families?” The replies were 345 ayes, 14.3 noes, and the rest doubtful; more than 65 per cent, over all for prohibition. Then, too, the Union Labor Bulletin can be quoted. In March, lf>2o, this paper writes editorially: “Liquor has been legislated out of business; the country has enjoyed six weeks (from January 16, when the amendment came in force) of better health, of better family conditions, of better payment of bills, of better results in the workshops, and of better citizenship generally. . . . It will take years to repair the wreckage, devastation and misery of liquor's regime. Let us get to work at once to save future generations from a return of the curse.” If the Labor Party had sent Arthur Henderson, M.P.. J. H. Thomas, M.P., or many others, there would have been a different report. We cannot help seeing that the M.P. reporters had a taste for "good liquor. —I am, etc., S G.H.M.