THE UNDISCLOSED OBJECT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3032, 31 October 1908, Page 5

THE UNDISCLOSED OBJECT.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Let me preface the few lines which I am desirous of penning, by remarking that it is a matter of indifferance to me whether No-License is carried or not. I am not a teetotaller, and as a matter of fact, 1 am fond of a drop of good whisky. Indeed, I am not averse to drinking in moderate quantities good liquor of any kind. If No-License is carried "it will not trouble ma," as the phrase goes, because I can afford to send out of the district for my liquor. The man, of course, who cannot afford to send away a fairly substantial sum, will have to go without liquor, unless he is willing' to break the by purchasing "chained lightning" from the sly grogger. But this; by the way. What I object to in the attitude of the No-License Party is the systematic and cunning manner in which they conceal their true objective. Is it No-License that they are advocating, or are they denouncing the open bar, simply as a first step towards securing complete prohibition? How many people, possibly thousands, are inveigled into voting NoLicense simply because they believe that the leaders of No-License mean nothing more than they say. Could a greater delusion exist? Who rose up in arms so violently against the famous "No-License—No-Liquor" clause? The No-License Party. Why? For the very good reason that they realised that that astute and revered statesman the late Mr Seddon, was prepared to unmask their real policy. "This will never do," said they, "we will get No License first and No-Liquor afterwards." The No-License Party will not tell you to-day thai they object to liquor coming into the Dominion, or being manufactured within it, but they do all the same, and they intend, if possible, to bring about a condition of absolute prohibition throughout the country. That is their real ob- ■ ject, and that is the object which they so carefully conceal, or refrain from disclosing. As I have said, it is a matter of complete indifference to me how the question is decided, but the electors should not blind themselves to the real issue at stake. Every vote cast for No-License is, practically, a vote for complete prohibition, for a prohibition much more thorough than that usually enforced by a prohibition order. The No-License Party does not want to reform the liquor trade in any respect—what they want is prohibition in ths strictest sense of the term. Then there is another phrase of the question worth considering, and of the two it is by far the most important to my mind. The No-License movement commenced in a harmless sort of manner, but what is the result of people banding themselves together to achieve a social object. With the desire to have their own way, there grows an intense longing for power, a desire to compel, to coerce, the public into line with their way of thinking, and not only in regard to one question, but practically all ques-, tions. Furthermore, the original object once achieved, those who achieve it become the rulers of the public, the dominant party. Do you really think, sir, that the NoLicense Party would rest content with securing No-License? No, they have set out to dominate political affairs and local politics, and should they succeed, the leaders ot the NoLicense Party will become our rulers. They will make the laws—freedom only such as is allowed in their narrow purview will be permitted, and we shall have to obey. In conclusion, I simply pen these lines to point out that a great deal more than No-License is involved in the issue now before the people. The question of whether there shall or shall not be licensed houses in Mastertori is a most trumpery part of the whole issue. I ask all your readers to carefully consider—for not a line of what I have written can be honestiy refuted—the staggering programme of the leaders of the No-License Party—the undisclosed object of the Prohibitionist proper. —1 am, etc., MANAIA.