THE DIRECT VETO.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2548, 29 August 1893, Page 2

THE DIRECT VETO.

On Sunday evening a meeting in connection with the Direct Yeto Association ; was held in the Volunteer Hall, Temuka. The building was crowded, both sexes being well represented. The Rev. Mr Dickson, who was the first speaker, after a brief introduction, said that since the last meeting held there the principle of direct veto had been practically endorsed by the country, but something more had yet to be done. Temperance advocates had met and depicted the miseries caused to families and the country generally by drink. The party had elected to the Licensing Bench honorable men who could he trusted to administer the law and control the traffic, but drankenuess and crime went on as, bad as ever. Publicans had been restricted until they had by all accounts become; such a harassed, pecked-at class, that lie could not but pity them. (Laughter). They had been prohibited from selling liquor to a drunken man, but unfortunately nobody was yet able to define when a man was really drunk. They had been debarred’ from selling liquor on Sundays to any but bona fide travellers, but again it was difficult to say who came .under that category. They were not allowed to sell to a prohibited person, but how could they identify the unfortunate individual. He pitied the poor publican. He (the speaker) was greatly consoled for the part he was taking by the thought of the advantage that would accrue to the publican, for he believed things would eveutally prove a source of prosperity to them in common with the rest of the community. Those interested had tried to regulate the drink traffic. They might as well try to regulate gunpowder, a nor’-wester, or a tiger. They had simply made fools of themselves. He frould illustrate what he wanted by a Story. They would remember that it was allow* aqle to advertise on the backs of postage stamps. A certain gentleman fell ift/ and was attended by his doctor, After »time he felt himself better, and began toffcsume his duties. His medical adviser paid him another visit, and the patient put out his tongue, when the doctor flew into a rage, and declared himself much insulted. What was the cause ? Why, there, im* prited on his tongue, which had been engaged in the useful work of licking stamps, was “ Give up doctors and use Mother Siegel’s Fyrup.” Now what he wanted his hearers to do was “ Give up regulation doctors and try Prohibition, It was a reasonable thing. No man Was allowed to carry on an offensive trade under his neighbor’s window, and why should they not be privileged to prevent an obnoxious trade like drink - selling being carried on under their noses 1 Prohibition was authorised by the Bible, as. instanced by the command “ Thou shall not steal.” Prohibition left the question in the people’s hands. It was for them to decide whether strong drink was to bo sold. There was supposed to be prohibition in the Bill of Mr Seddon’s so hurriedly passed through the but that Bill would never 'suft the temperance party. The principle of majority would not suit them. Surely the principle of a simple majority, already apart of the constitution, should be applied to the Licensing Laws, An obnoxious clause wfis that providing for hal| the electorate tq ha polled? Supposing, fqr instance, there were. 2Q . persons oh the electoral roll and eleven o| thesp absented themselves. Qf these three might be dead, for there were plenty of dead men's mmfes ou ttye anq they were difficult to get off; Pour more might be publicans or sympathisers with pqbUcauSj and four more might be indifferent S.ay eleven altogether were aijseut, leaving nine to vote. Supposing six yoted for prohibition and three against. That should carry it one would think, but jt would UQt. If the whole nine voted for prohibition it would not be granted, for half the electorate would not have polled, The provision maue m that Bill for prohibition was a snare, and they would not Haye it. They must gontinue agitating, They had held several meetings, all welf attended. Quo had commenced amidst interruption, but those ipost against them ended by moving resolutions in their favor, and on the whole their meetings had been most successful. The Rev. Mr Dickson then introduced The Rev. Mr Munro, who commenced his address with a humourous story, after yhich he expressed his pleaswtl heat*

ug they were bo well drilled in temperance principles, and did not want instruction from him. He was pleased with the temperance people in their town, and pleased with the attitude of the local paper, which was e ■duently fair. He did not altogether agree with a late leading article upon the subject of the Liquor Bill, but thought they ought to recognise the services of such an able advocate. He felt proud to see such a large and representative audience. It could not be described, as had been done in some cases, by papers of a certain color, as a gathering of a few fanatics, old women, and parsons. He believed that no other social refer.a could have brought so many together. There was good reason for their presence, for the case they had to consider was a most urgent one. He was not going to talk temperance that night. There was, he was assured, a splendid reformation in the abstinence matter, but when men like Mr Collins declared that prohibition was no good, but that their ends must, be attained by a gradual slowing off process, it was time for more advanced measures. He was glad to see so good a move made in their district, and their example, he was sure, would be followed in other places. It was arranged he believed, for temperance advocates to go carefully through the district, laying before each individual the issues involved, and he asked them to carefully weigh the arguments put before them and vote in accordance with their conscience and convictions. .They did not want to interfere with anyone’s liberty, nor did they want to close the hotels in Temuka or elsewhere. They had never expressed any such intention. They only wanted to say that it would be wise for Temuka if those houses with wide open doors and little rooms behind them had the liquor taken out of them. They did not want to do away with all that splendid accommodation but, they wanted it without liquor. They were only anxious to close the bars, and it was sheer impudence on the part of Mr W. P. Beeves to say that they wanted to confiscate property. They were above that sort of thing’ and he considered it scandalous that such a charge should be made. At Fairlie a similar charge was made, but he replied to it by an illustration. He asked if it were not a fact that coaches used to run between Timaru and Fairlie, and what became of them when the railway was opened. Did the country confiscate the coaches? Not at all, the proprietor retained his plant. All he lost was his trade, and although he might have suffered some little loss, and others too at stations where he stopped, yet the exigencies of the people demanded a railway audit was made. Their case was the same. If the hotels with their numerous bed-rooms, diningrooms, etc., were required, let the owners keep them. They claimed that these houses had been considered merely as public conveniences, and therefore their licenses had been granted from year to year. Publicans knew this, and looked to make big profits. One had even said they made 9d on the shilling. He did not know, and did not want to know what they made, but he compared them to huge sponges soaking up the wealth and the best blood of their nation, or to octopuses grasping all within the reach of their sucker-clad arms. All his party wanted was for people to look at the matter decently, and if they came to the conclusion they would be better without them then close them by all means. Speaking on Mr Seddon’s Bill Mr Munro said they must remember it was_ forced on the Government against their will. It formed no part of their policy. They never never intended to bother with it until the measure introduced by Sir 1 Hebert Stout disclosed the feeling of the people. Then the Premier undertook to bring in a Bill that would please everyone. He subsequently qualified it by saying he would please all moderate people. He would like to know who these people were. Mr Seddon said he would not try to xffease extremists. Of course, Mr Seddon was never an extremist himself. Now, who had the Bill pleased I It had not pleased the publicans. (A voice : “ Yes, it has.”) He said no. The Licensed Victuallers’ Association were not satisfied with it, and a prominent brewer in Wellington had declared that if it were passed he might as well throw all his property, some thirty thousand pounds worth, into the sea. (A voice : “Not so much as that, surely.”) Oh, well, say twenty shousand; he daresay the person interrupting could do with it, whatever it was. The Bill had not pleased the publicans, and it did not please the temperance party, but Mr iSeddon said he only intended 'to please the moderate party. Captain Bussell, who was supposed to know something on these matters, had started the question of illicit traffic in liquor if hotels were closed. He said if the people did not get their liquor in public bars they would get it in sly-grog shops. The Americans, the speaker believed, called them “ blind tigers,” where the grog sold had been described as being “like a toyqhlight procession going dow« a man ? s throat.” He (the speaker) believed the idea of sly-grog shops being started to bo a mere farce. It was a reflection on their civil administration. Captain Russell himself admitted that when his subordinates were threatened with dismissal 9 convictions were recorded where none could be obtained before. Of course the police could put it down. But was there no sly grog selling now ? Were there no back doors or coal houses where a nip cold be got on a Sunday. Why in Sydenham did they seek fresh licenses, when it was stated that more liquor was sold 'whed the houses were closed ? Why did the publicans from one epd O.f the colonyto the othergive £q apippe to fight the temperanpepprty f (A voice-“ They didn’t.) The speaker here humourously pointed put that he was not to be cried down, pad referred again to Mr Seddou’s Bill. The Premier’s antecedents gave th§ impression that he was likely side with |he publicans, and \t was qut forward |U qrdpp to got a burning question ready before next election. To those who merely believed in controlling the traffic, fhe bill offered some good provisions, especially as to clubs, etc., but it was a retrograde movement to accept the bill. Ip 1875 by a two- third s ma j ority of the residents, the commit eo could be debarred from granting a license to a hotel. The 1881 Amendment Bil, was believed to give committee’s a discretionary power but it was*found this was not the case. Now the new bill allowed for a three-flfth» majority of those on the roll, and the temperance people could not accept that. They 1 elieved in a pimple majority. What right had the Liberal party to bring in a Bill like that 1 The Labour vfc/ were rebelling against it. It was « f a piece with the Bill that refused Vq ectoral rights to shearers, and granted ®ohem to travellers. Hb ged Liberals to kick against it, Tim Bill was like an engine T hat would not work, or a watch that would not go. Since 1828 it had never been mooted that licenses should be granted for more than one year. Now the present Government were endeavouring to myo, throe year licenses. The of tlio electorate ««« ewp,sfr ttyriq,' Un 'a big

1 district it would be impossible to get the minds of the people. However, if Mr Seddon had allowed the electoral right all round, they would face the liquor men on a two-thirds majority, and beat them. He reminded them that at the next election the temperance question would be a burning one, and they must demand a distinct understanding from their represenative. His party had read the subject carefully up, studied the matter from every side, and concluded that the only manner to deal with it was by stopping it altogether. He them moved —“ That this meeting does not consider Mr Seddon’s Liquor Bill any solution of the drink question, and resolves to continue the agitation.” The motion was declared carried unanimously. A collection was taken up, and on the motion of Mr Guild a vote of thanks was passed to the Rev. Mr Munro for his address.

The meeting was closed with the Doxology.