THE PROHIBITION VOTE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXII, Issue 8246, 11 December 1911, Page 6

THE PROHIBITION VOTE.

After all, it may be a mistake to assume that the 284,000 people who voted for Dominion Prohibition ai=e all of the "..wowser" persuasion, Just as it would be erroneous to classify tha 189,^U'O who voted in the contrary way as ''liquor hooligans." It is an absolute certainty that a large number of voters who like their glass of liquor voted for National Prohibition, in a spirit of exasperation, simply because they were tired of the ever-recurring strife on the subject, and desired to see, the question settled definitely. Others -of the moderate drinking class voted in the same way, just to ''give Brother Bung a shake-up," by way of recording their protest against the evils associated with the control of the "liquor traffic. Quite a number in Ashburton district voted for Restoration and. also for National Prohibition. These voters belong to the severely logical class who believe in "the whole hog or none/ and who wished to put an end to the shrieking anomalies associated with the system of having licensed houses on one side of a road and prohibition on the other. These votes account for the fact that in many j districts the vote for National Prohibi- j tion was far in excess of that for Nolicense. Again, it is well-known. that lorge numbers of No-license voters do not approve of the no-liquor law. We [have heard of one "wowser" who pleaded in vain with a friend to get him a: bottle of brandy from a N sly-grog establishment, as he wanted to administer some medicinally to his wife. Other voters who are strongly opposed to the open bars enjoy a glass of homebrewed ale, or of gooseberry, raspberry, or parsnip wine, and they are aghast at the prospect of being deprived of their little luxury,, or of being sent to prison for brewing a little in their houses. The curious fact Is that with the increase of No-license areas in the Dominion, there has been no decrease in the quantity of intoxicants consumed. The statistics only refer to liquor subject to Custom or Excise duties, and do not include the large quantities of- " home-brewed," so that if the full facts were available, it ■would probably be found that the consumption of intoxicants is much greater per head of the population than it ever was before. Yet, in spite of this, the solid fact remains that far more than half of the adult electors who went to the polls on " Thursday last voted for No-license and No-liquor! What it all means it is hard to /determine.; but it is quite apparent that if bare majority rule had been applied to the prohibition vote, the Dominion would have been decreed "dry." Even without the bare majority rule, it is clear that opinion in favour of Nolicense has been steadily growing, as may h&. seen from the following;*? record of the different polls since 1896: —

Thus, in twelve years, the No-license vote increased by 123,159 (125 per cent.). The reduction vote in the same period 1 gained by 68,007 (72 per cent.), while the gain for continuance was only 48,560 (35 per cent,). .

Year. Continuance. *No-license. 1896 "... 139,580 ... 93,312 1899 ... 142,443 ... 118,575 1902 .... 148,449 ... 151,524 1905 ... 182, SB4 ... 198,768' 1908' ... 188,140 ... 221,473