MAKING HISTORY.

White Ribbon, Volume 24, Issue 281, 18 November 1918, Page 1

MAKING HISTORY.

A very large and influential deputation assembled in the old chamber of the House of Representatives to present to the Premier and the Finance Minister the large petition asking for a Referendum upon the Efficiency Hoard's proposal for ending the Liquor Trade. The deputation was introduced bv Mr L. M. Isitt, and the speakers were Rev. R. S. Gray, President of the N.Z. Alliance; Mrs Don, President of the W.C.T.U.; and Rev. F. A. Bennett, Superintendent of Maori Missions. Rev. R. S. Gray spoke clearly, concisely, and temperately, and with masterly skill framed his indictment against “The Trade.” He spoke of the size of the petition, the largest ever presented to Parliament. The deputation came to them as patriots, not as Prohibitionists. Hut there was now a consensus of opinion amongst statesmen that the question of Prohibition must be dealt with m the interests of national efficiency. The tftne had gone past when they had to convince members th.»t the liquor trade was an enemy, not oelv to the individual, but to the nation. They held that the war had amply demonstrated that the liquor trade was the enemy of the nation, and they row asked them to introduce legislation to banish the liquor trade in the interest--of economic, physical, and moral efficiency. They, together with the business men, urged the Government to carry into effect the recommendation of the Efficiency Board. The N.Z. Alliance, after grave deliberation, had abandoned its opposition to compensation, and had agreed to th M

recommendation of ihe Efficiency Hoard for reasonable comi>ensation to the liquor trade. The Alliance did not believe that the liquor trade had either legal or moral right to compensation, but h.ul accepted it because they believed it was the only way to get legislation to deal speedily with the traffic. They understood that on the lines of the F.flit iency Hoard’s rej>ort they would have immediate prohibition by a bare majority. He characterised the Liquor Petition as dishonest, because while professing to try to discover the will of the people, it took special precautions to defeat that end. It was a case of “Heads they win, and tails we lose.” They asked for .r vote on three issues: Continuance, National Ownership, and NaMonal Piohibition. No person to vote or. more than one issue, and no issue carried except by an absolute majority of the votes cast. If too votes were cast, 50 for prohibition, 40 for State ownership, and 1 for continuance, continuance would win because neither of the other issues secured a majority (51) of the votes cast. The speaker pointed out that large as the petition was, a much larger one could have been >»ccured for Prohibition without compensation, and if the Government did not grant this petition, we should come next year with a petition for Prohibition without compensation, which would b° overwhelming. The Labour Party weie also presenting a petition asking for four issues on a preferential vote. The Labour Party were the custodians of democracy. If more than two issues were put upon the ballot paper, there was no way of ascertaining the will of

the people save by preferential voting or a second ballot. Before State Ownership was ’iut upon a ballot paper, we wanted to know how much the trade wanted to buy them out; whethci ’* .tional liquor trade was to be run tor profit or to promote temperance; what type of civil servant was to sell the liquor, whether they were to be the p r esent licensed victuallers, barmen, and barmaids ? In eon. fusion, all they asked was that the public should have a fair chance of expressing their will at th° ballot box. Mrs Don feelingly and eloquently presented the woman’s point of view. The long tragedy of the war had led all people to see the harm of alcohol. It was evil only, and science showed that it disqualified humanity from the cradle to the grave, and no class knew this better than the women did. She h..d met mothers who had given their sons to the Empire, and these sons were now sleeping on the slopes of Gallipoli or in the renmteries of France, women whose sons were in the danger zone, women whose sons had beer, returned mutilated, and they had made no moan. All they complained of was that sons who had left total abstainers had returned with a craving for alcohol. She urged the Ministers now, when war had so sadly depleted our man power, to do all possible to conserve what was left. Compensation had been a bitter pill for the women to swallow; thev d’d not see that a trade which had always brought ruin in its train should be They emphatically objected to compensation, but so strongly did thev feel the menace of

the liquor trade that they were prepared to a>k the Government to pay compensation and give them prohibition without waiting four and a-half years for it. The Kev. F. If. Bennett presented a petition signed by 414 b members of the Maori race. They had no vote, and they came as children to a father asking for protection from this deadly evil. He pleaded eloquently for protection for a “dying race.” the Premier, in reply, said that the liquor question must be dealt with. The petition would be referred to Cabinet. He had no desire to postpone legislation. legislation must follow at the earliest possible date. For himself and on behalf of Cabinet, he promised them a straight run for their proposals. Sir Joseph Ward said that the suggested compensation to the Trade had cleared the wav for many public men; it bad for himself. He believed it hah M made the way open for the expression of public opinion, and made possible a straightforward derision as to whether the liquor trade should continue in this country or not. The nrosports look rosy for a Referendum being taken in the near future, and then will corn o the tug-of-war. Get to work at once to place voters on the roll, always carry enrolment forms in your bag. We cannot afford iO lo?-* one vote through carelessness or lark of effort. Muster all our forces, and make this a fight to a finish.