MR JAMES SIMPSON, OF CANADA, ON STATE OWNERSHIP.

White Ribbon, Volume 24, Issue 281, 18 November 1918, Page 3

MR JAMES SIMPSON, OF CANADA, ON STATE OWNERSHIP.

It was a telling address th.U Mr Simpson delivered in the Town Hall on Friday evening, October 25th, on the occasion of the Alliance Conference, held in Wellington. llis argument was clear and logical, and briefly stated was this: Every department of the Government, directly or indirectly, is affected by, or is compelled to make regulations against, the Liquor Traffic; therefore the Government cannot with any consistency become the manufacturer or supplier or vendor of liquor. Treating then the principal departments in turn, he showed in what special ways each was affected by the question, drawing illustrations from his own wide and varied experience. Having filled various public positions in connection with education and the industrial world, he had made it his first duty to see that the best all-round development was made possible for the children. Statistics showed that the mentally defe< tive were chiefly the children of drinking parents, and that taking intoxicating liquors reduced the intellectual powers. Careful investigation in Austria, where children were in the habit of drinking wine and beer, etc., had shown that only 42 per cent, of such children qualified for scholarships; of those who were “habitual occasional” drinkers, only 32 i>er cent, qualified ; and of those who drank once a day or twice a day, the percentage dropped to 20 and 25 respectively. There was now in the Dominion of Canada a most efficient medical examination of children to ascertain their fitness for assimilating knowledge. Moreover, in all the schools Scientific Temperance was taught, and this had been a great contributing factor to the success of Prohibition. Children ought to know the nature and character of alcohol, ranking as it does with opium, morphine, and cocaine, three of the deadliest drugs known. They ought to be taught about their bodies and the effect that alcohol has on the various organs, and especially on the brain. The New Zealand Government has done something in thi* direction; howthen could it consistently become the manufacturer of so dangerous a poison ? The Health Department, recognising that preventive measures were

safer ind better than curative, had no hesitation in curtailing the liberty of the subject where necessary in the interest of health. In Canada war was against the fly and the mosquito as carriers of disease —witness what was done in the Panama Canal zone against dirty yards and footpath*. In the same way, in Toronto, a monthly health bulletin was issued advising abstinence from intoxicating drinks; while in every part of the world it was being recognised that alcohol had more than anything else to do with the prevalence of venereal disease. How could any Government that was endeavouring to maintain the standard of health among the people, go in for the manufacture of that which was recognised as a deadly menace to the health of its citizens? Turning next to the Department of Justice, which has for its aim t<» minimise crime, statistics had been brought forwar dtimes without number proving that by far the greater proportion of crime was due, directly or indirectly, to Drink. A large percentage of divorce cases, alike in New Zealand and in America, had their origin in this evil. On the other hand, everywhere restriction of drinking had led to reduction in crime. If, then, the direct business of the Government was to promote the prosperity, the health, and the morality of the people, how could it have anything to do with a business which is admitted to have the very opposite tendency ? Look at the regulations made by th" Defence Department ; the dry canteens, the anti-shouting law, and the latest effort for the protection of the returning soldiers, the closing of the hotel bars on the days when transports arrive with troops. Surely a Government that had done all this for the purpose of safeguarding its soldiers could not so far stultify its action as to become owner of the industry that rendered these regulations necessary. In America thev had gone much further. In U.S.A., it was a crime to give or sell liquor to a soldier, and in Canada newspapers were forbidden to publish liquor advertisements. There were many facts proving that alcohol retarded the recovery of wounded soldiers; indeed, had been sometimes responsible for their death,

The speaker proceeded to give various illustrations of tragedies resulting from the Drink Traffic. A woman spending all her military pay on liquor, till one day the house caught fire during one of her drinking bouts, and her three little children were burnt to death; a Canadian boy, who had come from a dry camp, but falling a victim to the drink habit, died a drunkard’s death in a London street with a harlot by his side. Recently the lecturer had had occasion to travel on one of tin* great Atlantic liners, and observed the precautions taken, the captain scarcely sleeping during the six days of anxiety, the bo different watchers on the lo<»k-out for submarines, the care taken to prevent a ray of light escaping yet with all this an open bar on the steamer, and one night a drunken man fell in a doorway so as to keep the- door open, thus exposing the whole ship, with its hundreds of passengers and crew, to the risk of getting torpedoed One most important Department was Public Works and Railways. In America, it was now usual for employers to enquire as to the drinking habits of those who seek employment, for they recognise that it was a question not merely of morals, but also of economics. Similarly all the great Labour organisations agreed that those who drink should not get the same benefits in the sick and funds as those who were abstainers. In face of all this it was impossible that any State should, with advantage to itself, take up the work of manufacturing and selling alcohol. A commodity that shortened life and interfered with insurance risks, *nd particularly New Zealand, a State that had already gone so far in the direction of Life, Fire, and Accident Insurance. The financial aspect of P-ohibition had received great attention in America, and everywhere investigation showed that it was a splendid success. Taking one striking instance from Toronto. It was d°cided, at the beginning of the war, to insure every boy who enlisted for 1000 dollars. As there were 75,000, it was expected that at th'* end of 1917 five million dollars would be required to meet the insurance, and it was proposed to issue debentures; but it was found the increase in revenue had

been such that the whole liability could be met by only a slight increase in the taxes, without raising anything by debentures. In Massachusetts, from 25 years’ statistics, h was found that municipal debts wie S per cent, less in No-License districts than in License; cost of police was 22 per cant, less; vote for education was 40 per cent, more; por cent. l r ss was given to charity ; 25 per cent, more to good roads. No statesman who studied these and similar facts would dare argue on any* public platform that the Liquor Traffic was needed to supply the revenue of a community. We spend money on Education, that our children may be properly equipped, yet the Liquor Traffic robs us of a great deal of their value. This could be shown in a striking way. Under the existing legislation, years must elapse before a poll carrying Prohibition could be eifertive. Taking the same ratio of loss of lives through drink as was found to art in Canada, IXSO would be lost each year, making a total of 3800. F.ach life may be reckoned as worth £7OO to New Zealand. Thcdcfore the total loss in productive power would be to which must be added the loss occasioned by drunkards who would lose at least one week’s work each year. Referring to the petitions before the people of New Ze.ttand, Mr Simpson explained the attitude of the Alliance in accepting the Efficiency Board’s recommendations, and j>ointed out the undemocratic nature of the Trade petition, with its three issues, and its claim that t<> carry prohibition there must be a clear majority over the other issues. In a most striking way he put th" matter in a nutshell. “There is my friend Hell in the chair; I want to get there, so does my friend Gray; 100 votes are taken; Gray gets 50, I get 40, and Bell, who g*‘ts one, stays on in the chair. That’s Democracy as interpreted by the Trade.” The Labour petition, he went on to say, was truly democratic, with its four issues and preferential voting, but for the sake of the workers, he, as a Labour man, would urge that the Efficiency Board’s proposal should be fought for with all their might. Mr Simpson concluded his address with a very fine peroration, and the singing of the National Anthem brought the proceedings to a close.