WHY THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC TALKS AMERICA.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 September 1922, Page 10

WHY THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC TALKS AMERICA.

The liquor traffic in New Zealand, afraid to face a discussion on the merits of the question, as to whether it is a benefit or a curse to New Zealand, is concentrating on wide publicity that has for its object the discrediting of prohibition in America. In the case of a trade so bankrupt of real argument, so absolutely on the pariah for valid reasons why people should continue to support it and its deplorable results, these tactics have ascertain value. In the first place, America • is far away and the average New Zealander has no opportunity of investigating for himself on the spot the truth or otherwise of the liquor party’s statements. Secondly, the liquor traffic can tell a scandalous lie about America at the last moment before New Zealanders can have an opportunity of getting the truth before they poll then* vote. FACTS TO BE REMEMBERED. In combating this misleading propaganda on the part of the liquor traffic it is as well to keep always to the front certain fundamental facts about prohibition in the United States. Let it never be forgotten that national prohibition in the U.S.A, is the outcome of seventy-five years of persistent education and agitation and never-flinching conflict against the most highly organised and disreputable liquor traffic the world has ever seen. For seventy-five years the people in the United States grappled with this problem, trying all kinds of regulation and reform, and in the end adopted national Prohibition. But Prohibition on a national scale was not adopted until thirty-four of the different States had at different times adopted it, tested it, a,nd found it to be the sanest method of dealing with the problem. In twenty-four of these States prohibition had been adopted by popular vote. And popular votes taken since have proved that after a fair trial, “dry” majorities are vastly increased, showing that experience of prohibition makes converts of those who previously opposed it. OF THE SAME MIND STILL. The liquor traffic in New Zealand has been declaring about once a month for the past three years that the political pendulum in the United States had begun to swing back and that the Prohibition law was just about to be repealed. This is a case of the wish being father to the thought—certainly nothing could 'be further from the truth. For evidence in support of this contention we may look to the people themselves. First, taking as our guide the people’s representatives and later the votes of the people themselves. Last year, owing to a technical loophole in the Prohibition law it was found that beer could be legally prescribed as a medicine and the Treasury was compelled to issue regulations for its manufacture and sale. The Prohibitionists immediately introduced an Anti-beer Bill to prohibit the manufacture of beer for medicinal purposes. This was passed in Congress by 250 votes for to 93 against. Tn the Senate the voting was 56 for and 22 against. Not only did this Bill prohibit the manufacture of beer, but it stopped the importation of wines and spirits until such time as depleted stocks in the U.S.A, made it necessary to import again. As a matter of fact importation has been stopped for ten years, thus preventing much illicit trade by those professing to import for medicinal and sacramental purposes. Then in February last year it was announced that neither the Republican or Democratic National Congressional Committees would finance or countenance anything looking to the repeal of the 18th Amendment oi’ the weakening of the Volstead Law.

In June this year Congressman Hill presented a petition calling for action on a Bill of his that sought to legalise the manufacture of 4 per cent. beer. Out of a Congress of 435 members he succeeded in getting only 50 to put their names to his petition. In Oregan in June the primary elections were held for selecting candidates for the Congress to be elected in November this year. Four Republicans were standing and three of them were for strict enforcement of the Prohibition law and one was running on a light wine and beer ticket. The four together got an aggregate vote of 42.400; of this number only 2.200 were cast for the beer and wine candidate. In Ohio both the Republican and Democratic parties have nominated “drys” for the office of Governor and for most of the State officers, and a “dry” has been nominated for Attorney-General.

WHAT W. H. TAFT SAID. The Chief Justice in the U.S.A., Mr, W. 11. Taft, said in 1921, “I did not favor prohibition when it was an issue. It has been adopted in the constitutional manner by the people and it should be enforced in good faith.” The facts I have set out above prove conclusively that the Chief Justice is right and that the people have adopted and intend to stand by the Prohibition law. WHAT ABOUT NEW ZEALAND. We want to hear from the liquor traffic something about New Zealand. We want the traffic to tell us just what its contribution is tu- the happiness of homes, the health and wealth of individuals, efficiency in business, and the economic stability of i?he Dominion. We want it to tell us whether the expenditure of 7i millions per annum on intoxicating drink is a sound proposition ■for a country that is struggling'to make both ends meet. We want it to tell us whether the admission in one year of children to State care through drunkenness on the part of the parents is a good thing when the State says it will cost the country nearly £85,000 to care for these children. That is the State estimate in regard to 61 children admitted in 1919. In 1920, 86 more children were admitted and of course a still larger cost will have to be covered in this case. PROHIBITION PROHIBITS. Hon. A. P. Nelson, in the House of Representatives, U.S.A., on December 21, 1921, said: “For the year ended June 30, 1916, the American people consumed the enormous quantity of 2.005,802,325 gallons of alcoholic liquor at an approximate cost of 2,438,037,985 dollars For the year ending June 30, 1920, there was withdrawn for consumption, presumably for non-beverage use, 28,220,909 gallons. In September o2 this year, 1921. there was a reduction of more than 8000 permits (to withdraw liquors). These figures can mean ctely one thing that the consumption of alcoholic liquors in the United States has been tremendously reduced by prohibition.” (Inserted by the Taranaki Provincial Prohibition Publicity.)