The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. Tuesdays, May 30, 1899. THE PROHIBITION CONVENTION.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXI, Issue 3904, 30 May 1899, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. Tuesdays, May 30, 1899. THE PROHIBITION CONVENTION.

The Prohibition Convention at Palmerston North (says the Post ), ran the Women’s National Council and the Trades and Labour Conferences very close in the number and complexity of its resolutions. It certainly did not cover such a magnificent area of politics as the other two assemblies, but within the limits of the liquor question it contrived to make proposals as sweeping and impracticable as the Women’s Parliament and the Trade Union delegates. With the efforts to inculcate habits of temperance and to teach men to overcome the vicious excesses of drunkenness, reasonable men and women must sincerely sympathise, but Temperance aud Prohibition are wide as the poles asunder. In his own way and on his own subject the typical Prohibitionist is as intemperate as the heavy drinker. He fails entirely to distinguish use from abuse, and argues that because A and his friends consume more liquor than is good for them therefore B and hie friends should be compelled by law to abstain from alcohol altogether. This is the fundamental idea of Prohibition, although some of the more worldlyminded of its advocates dexterously contrive to put their case in a halflight that hides its worst blemishes. They do not want Prohibition by Act oE Parliament, they say, oh, dear no ! They only want the bare majority in an electoral district, or better still throughout the colony, to deprive the minority however large, of the privilege to select its own beverages. What onr Prohibitionist friends would have is a Statute permitting fifty-one per cent of the population in the district or in the whole colony to deprive the remaining forty-nine per cent of an article of diet that is as old as civilisation and perhaps older. The issue has been before this country for some time, and the bulk of moderate men and women in the community are heartily sick of the agitation. The Legislature has granted a local option poll but wisely decrees that such an arbitrary interference with private conduct should not be enforced unless it is supported by a large majority. To allow a bare majority to dictate in such a way to its fellows would be unjust and, what is more, utterly foolish for a minority would, if strong enough, overtly and covertly set such a law at defiance, and the dominant fifty odd per cent would have to be enrolled en masse as special constables, magistrates, and so on for rendering such an absurd regulation effective. It is needless and utterly wearisome at this time of the day to go over the old ground, and to have to combat the old arguments. The Prohibitionists in spite of their desperate exertions have not adduced a single new reason for the despotism they wish to exercise and they would be doing far more lasting good by endeavoring to modify the drinking habits of the community than by vainly attempting the impossible task of abolishing alcohol. All who wish for the real progress of the colony apart from abstract theories and crabbed principles must be desirous of seeing this contentious Prohibition eliminated from politics. Among the pledges the Palmerston Convention resolved to exact from Parliamentary candidates was one to £ im port taking fhe local option vote

simultaneously with the election of Licensing Committees. This would ensure the local option and the Parliamentary poll being taken on different days, instead of, as now, on the same occasion. In this matter we are in complete accord with the Convention, and the sooner the change is made the better we shall be pleased. Our politics are already full enough of cross issues raised in most cases by the extremists of the community, and while we are ready to defend all reasonable schemes for encouraging temperance, we cannot but regret the part Prohibition has played at eleotions. With the other three pledges—namely, the colonial option vote, the inclusion of all forms of license under the popular vote, and the bare majority vote on the issue “ license or no lioense,” we have, for the reasons stated above, no sympathy. Several other resolutions were carried, most of whioh, however, affeoted the Prohibitionists as a political party, and provided rules of conduct for their ooraiug eleotoral oampaign. They evidently desire to enter municipal as well as colonial politics, and, in fact, establish a sort of Prohibition ticket, whioh would be, in its way, as tyrannous as the Seddon ticket. While we feel obliged in the public interest to oppose arbitrary legislation demanded by pronounced Prohibitionists, we are quite ready to admit the good work done iu recent years by the general temperance movement, of which the present political agitation is, we trust, only a temporary aberration. Sound practical good might be effected even through the Legislature if the Prohibitionists would only moderate their demands and join hands with other social reformers. We should ourselves gladly support legislation to compel the improvement of licensed houses in the direction of substituting well conducted residential hotels for drinking shops. Then, it is high time that tied houses were actually abolished, and the trade established on lines that would make it a sound and creditable investment for responsible business men—in all cases as licensees. In their persistent endeavour to bring about complete abolition, Prohibitionists neglect lamentably the obvious reforms that lie ready to hand. At times, indeed, they seem almost to encourage trade evils in order to strengthen their own case, in other words, they want all for nothing. There is room for rational reform, and it would be acceptable to many, who, like ourselves, insist that the abolition of licenses should remain as now at the will of a threefifths majority of the votes polled.