PROHIBITION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2547, 26 August 1893, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ Observer’s ’ ’ opinion on Prohibition is no tworth much. His letter shows that though he feels strongly he does not see clearly—in plain words, that he writes at random. His strong bias against Prohibition and temperance reformers shows that he does not belong to that class. If he did, he would nave known that the temperance reformers the world over are thoroughgoing Liberals in politics, and hard workers in social reform. However, that is a small matter. “ Observer ” thinks that if working men and farmers go in for Prohibition they will go against their best interests—they will impoverish themselves—they “will cut their own throats.” Well, sir, such a state of things is too awful to think about. But we are not so much affected by it as “ Observer ” might desire, for the simple reason that we have heard it so often before. The Licensed Victuallers’ Gazette is full of this sort of cry—aud so are the newspapers that are “ under the thumb of the liquor ring,” and, alas! they are very many in the big towns of New Zealand. Indeed, for fair treatment of our position from the political side, I have met nothing better than the Temuka Leader. We are so much accustomed to misrepresentation that we feel a little surprised at fair treatment. This by the way. The relation of the drink traffic to the industrial and commercial wellbeing of the nation is, indeed, an all-important question, and one that , the prohibitionists have considered carefully and well, and our contention is that the adoption of Prohibition would work such an economic change that there would be work in abundance for every man and woman able and willing to work; and from a prosperous people the public treasury would be enriched to overflowing. Wo hold, with Sir Robert Stout, “ that the money spent in drink is not reproductive—it is wasted. If the money was not so spent it would be available for taxation.” Instead of working oul an illustration myself, let me quote from an English M.P. He says : “But I know that appeals to the conscience alone will not always suffice to arouse it or to awaken interest. I shall therefore state a few facts showing the disastrous effects of the drink traffic and the drinking customs upon the trade and commerce of our country, and that should be of interest to everybody. We hear working men all around us complaining that they cannot get work. Now let us see how far the the liquor traffic conduces to this state of things, so disastrous to the honest seeker after employment. What return do alcoholic liquors make for the labor and money expended on them 1 If the money used in manufacturing alcoholic liquors in this country were used in the manufacture of other articles, there would be, at the lowest computation, employment for six or even teu times more men than is the case at present. Let me prove this to you by a few facts. Gninness’s brewery, iu Dublin, with an annual turnover of more than two million pounds, and a subscribed aud fully paid-up capital of six million pounds, employs only 1,600 men, not a tithe of the number which would be employed in the manufacture of, say, cotton, woollen, iron, or steel goods, with the same amount of capital. On the authority of the Scotsman, it has been stated that the Caledonian distillery, Bdinboro’, which turns over one aud a-half million pounds per annum, only employs 150 men; whilst in the immediate neighborhood of the distillery are ironworks, which send out annually goods to the value of one million pounds, and employs 1,400 men. That is to say, that supposing the distillery and the ironworks each turned over annually an equal amount of one and a-half million pounds, the distillery would employ 160 men and the ironworks 2,100 men. And with this fractionally small number of men employed in the drink trade in proportion to the capital used, what profit does the workman get as compared with other trades 1 Let us see. According to a calculation by Mr Thomas Burt, who was himself a working man, and is well known to be a very fair and reliable man, it has been estj-iHSitfid t4l a t for QVgiy fivg pounds spent oq sfyqes tl>p workman 375; on woollen cloth fye gets £3; op made-up cloths £3 11s; bqt mark, fop every £5 spent on drink he only gets 2s 6d !” Mr John Craig, in the Dundee Journal, writes;-^The following facts may be of some use to yoqr readers tQ help them realise how very injurious the liquor traffic is to the best interests of working men ; It is calculated that the distilleries of Scotland turn out annually £10,000,000 worth of spirits, and this vast amount is manufactured by only 2,000 persons; whereas, from railway traffic returns we learn that for the same , volume in railway traffic —£10,000,000 — no less than 50,000 men find employment, Then, if we examjnq sQiqa Of ttys trftdg'l for the preparation qr production qf articles of use and general requirement, we find that they far exceed the 40 per ceut allowed. The fishing industry is marked by a case in point, for it is calculated that £10,000,000 worth of fish would give employment to 186,000 pef: sous. We see then that tor 6?ery £10,000,000 spent on liquqr and wg spent 14 times that last year— instead of on fish, we keep 184,000 persons idle, la not this a clear proof that drunkenness is the cause of bad trade 1 and the working man who spends his wages on alcohol instead of on fish is an enemy to his class, and a drag on the progress of labor.” But Observer raises the very important question of “public revenue.” He is afraid of it under Prohibition. There is always fear in the child of ignorance. Now, his “ opinion ” or mine is of little value on this subject. Let me, therefore, quote some authorities on the question, Mr Gladstone said to deputations of brewepa recently : <( Gently

men, I cannot allow the question of mere revenue to be considered alongside of a question of morals; but give me a sober population, not wasting their earnings on strong drink, and I shall know where to get my revenue.” And Christian statesmen have not yet attained the moral elevation of the Chinese Emperor, Tao - Kwang, who said, when the opium traffic was forced upon him: “ I cannot prevent tho introduction of the poison; but nothing will induce me to raise revenue from the vice and misery of my people.” A great Conservative statesman, Sir Stafford Northcote, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking of the change which a reduction in the consumption of drink would make upon the revenue, said; “ I venture to say that the amount of wealth such a change would bring to the nation would utterly throw into the shade tho amount of revenue that is now derived from the Spirit Duty, and we should not only see with satisfaction a diminution of the revenue from such a cause, but we should find in various ways that the Exchequer would not suffer from the losses which it might sustain in that direction.” I might quote columns to the same effect. But I have already made too large a demand on your space. I trust that “ Observer ” will revise his knowledge, and in the face of these facts by eminent authorities that I have quoted, see that Prohibition would be good for the whole nation, and for no class in it more —if so much—as his own class, the working men.—l am, etc., P. R. Monro.