THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY. MARCH 27, 1894. THE LICENSING ELECTIONS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2638, 27 March 1894, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY. MARCH 27, 1894. THE LICENSING ELECTIONS.

Th* publicans have won the day, but they need not gloat over their victory. Protected and safe-guarded as they are by the restrictions placed on . the will of the people by the present Act, they have had in many places a very narrow escape. A very large number of people have made it quite plain that they have no love for them, and unless they are extremely blind to their own interests they will profit by the lesson given to them. So far as we can see the Prohibitionists have nowhere mustered up very formidably; taken all round, they do not number one-fourth of the electors, and it is not from them the publicans have to fear most, but from those who declined to vote. Thos ' are people who do not care if all the public houses were shut up in one day; they have no great sympathy with either side, and the publicans would do well to do nothing which would drive them into the enemy’s camp. Even the very apathy they have shown is fraught with danger to the publicans, because their abstinence from voting enables a smaller number to carry prohibition, provided one half of the electors poll. The truth of the old saw that “ those who are not with us are agaiust us,” was never better exemplified than in this connection, and the publicans may as well open their eyes to the fact that their future success will greatly depeud on their own conduct. It is the outrageously bad conduct of the trade that has roused such a feeling agaiust it, and in a measure it cannot very well help itself, because it is over-done. There are in this country at least twice as mauy publichouses as there is any need for, and the result is that most of them have to resort to trie s and artifices to make both ends meet. They break the law by selling drink during prohibited hours as often as they can ; they never discourage the habitual drunkard ; they take the last farthing from the father of a poor family, and smother their feelings as regards his poor starving children ; they sell cheap, adulterated liquor, and use every means within their reach to make money, because their trade is small, and their rents and taxes are large. This is the result of having too mauy hotels ; it is impossible that they can all make an honest, lawabiding living, and hence a great deal of the evils of the trade. If the number of public houses were greatly reduced the publicans would then be doing well, and could afford io refuse the money of the habitual drunkard, the prohibited person, the midnight gambler, the Sunday customer, aud so on. They could afford to carry ou their badness as the law contemplates ; they would not think of running the risks they run now, for they would not be so needy, and it would pay them to be careful. For these reasons wo have favored reduction. W« believe that mauy of the publicans would do better at other occupations, and that the public would be better served than they are at present. When the Prohibitionists declared against no reduction wo warned them that their action would drive many into the opposition camp. They can see now that we guaged the public temper pretty accurately. But the arguments used against reduction were ridiculous. The cry was that it would not be right to shut up some without shutting up all, as to do so would enrich those who got licenses, while depriving the others of a moans of living. What tender-hearted people to be sure. They sai l in effect “We shall not deprive 25 persons of a living unless wo can deprive 100 of it. We shall not upset a few unless we can overturn the whole fabric, aud bury the entire lot in oue complete hecatomb.” This is the cry that told against reduction, and the Prohibitionists are responsible for it. Supposing, for instance, prohibition were carried throughout the whole colony, and thousands upon thousands were thrown out of employment in one day, what would be the result ! No one can toll; it bp very sepiqqs, buv if only 25 per oeut, vyeye sljat up we blioull ivA be able to realise that anything had happened at all, And yet people go on raving about the injustiso of shutting up a few unless all can oe shut. To shut up all would create a terrible panic, from which the colony would not recover for some time ; while to shut up a few would do a great deal of good. This i* the difference between reduction and prohibition. One would do good, {he oi lier harm; but at the same time r.b« publicans that they Will bo jooKed after more carefully in future Men and women now know that they will bo occasionally called on to v'ote on the question of temperance, and they will in future pay more attention to to thesubj ct. The publicans want looking after. They frequently ant like madmen. During the Wdeji pwiOUS the election there was more dru nkotums** I** J , -'emu|»a tljai) we have witnessed for years. It wa« madness for publicans to permit this, and unless they take better care of their business they will find their houses shut up some d*y- _ § PROHIBITION. A few evenings before the recent licensing elections, the Rev. Mr Dellow in bis speech at Temuka, said that Mr Rhodes was defeated at the general election by the Direct Veto Committee. Probably the result of the licensing election has undeceived him. Mr Rhodes

was defeated, and Mr Flatman elected in spite of the muddling, and fuddling and blundering of the Direct Veto Committee, but nothing only such positive proofs as the licensing election have given could satisfy prohibitionists on that point. They can see now what an iusignit'uwuf minority they are 1 only

743 as against 3253—n0t even one-fourth —and we trust this knowledge will teach them to be a little more modest in future. We should not have noticed Mr Bellow’s remarks, only for the fact, that ever since the general election the Direct Veto Committee have claimed credit for having wou the last election. The real fact is that only it was taken out of their hands altogether it would have beeu lost. As ror their claims to being Liberals, the evidence runs entirely iuthe opposite direction. In the first place, they approached Mr Rhodes on several occasions with the view of getting him to adopt their platform, and, when he declined, they selected a Conservative out of several Liberal candidates. They adhered to Conservatism as long as they could, and even now, support and encourage their lecturers to vilify and slander the Liberal Premier. The muddling of the Direct Veto Committee, resulted in Air T. Ley announcing himself, and supposing he had been supported in a certain quarter, would Mr Rhodes have been defeated ? Certainly not. The Direct Veto Committee would have brought out a third candidate, the votes would have been split up, aud Mr Rhodes would have been elected. But the whole election was at this point taken out of the hands of the Direct Veto Committee; aud henceforward it prospered. It is, however, unnecessary to go to all this trouble to show how powerless the Direct Veto Committee are. They have had the election of the licensing committee all to themselves now, and the number of votes they have beeu able to record falls short of one-' fourth of the total number actually cast at the time of the general election. That is sufficient answer to their claim of having won the general election, and now we trust they will take the lesson to heart, aud cease to abuse everyone who will not dance to any tune they like to play. There is not the slightest doubt that their defeat is due in a great measure to the methods they have been employing. The way they have been boasting of having wou the last election, and the monstrously unjust and unfair attacks made on Mr Seddon, have lost them considerable support, and they may as well begin to realise it at once. Let them remember, as a great man has said, that a single drop of oil has a more soothing effect than a whole barrel of vinegar; in other words, conciliatory methods will bring more converts to their side than the sledge-hammer bludgeoning they have hitherto indulged in. Men who cannot be driven, can easily be led. Father Matthew made 5,000,000 total abstainers in five years, and he never said an unkind word of anybody. He laid plain facts before the people, he put the advantages of temperance before them in calm dispassionate language, and wia marvellously successful. We trust the prohibitionists will in future adopt similar methods; aud will ceaqo to look upon everyone who disagrees with them as either a fool or a rogue.