LICENSE V. NO-LICENSE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 79, 1 April 1908, Page 8

LICENSE V. NO-LICENSE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —During the last few ■weeks the Press has been inundated with matter having reference to the liquor question in some form or other, and license as against No-License. We have had comment from various sources on the subject, chiefly from or through advocates of the latter, whose views and ideas are so confined to their own notions that anything expressed which does not coincide with their methods or way of thinking must of necessity be at least- discounted or considered wrong, and therefore worse than worthless. Fortunately, however, there are two sides to every question, and that rule applies in this as in all other cases. Hitherto the NbLicense party have had their fling. They have been allowed to hurl slander and abuse right and left broadcast. They have been allowed to paint imaginary pictures of the horrid things that may or may not happen. They have been allowed to make misleading and even false statements without being challenged. In fact, they have been allowed to ply their vindictive and vicious calling for years practically untrammelled. We hear and read a lot about the so-called success of No-License (or, I should say, no control) in New Zealand, but we only hear of this alleged wonderful success from the advocates of that mongrel term. The question is huge and comprehensive. It requires carefully looking into, especially as we have had some experience of it in New Zealand. Let us examine the matter and see what has been the result of such experience up to and including the election of 1905. It is usual for the No-License party to parade and publish statements and statistics in such a manner, not only to suit their own particular purpose, but so as to mislead the general public, who are not always disposed to go into detail. I propose herein to deal with the three issues which are submitted to the people every three years, by way of illustration so far as a few of the electorates are concerned. The figures are taken from the official records of the Dominion. Everyone knows that sixty per cent or three-fifths of the valid votes recorded are required to carry either No-License or Restoration, and that fifty per cent is required to carry Reduction or Continuance. Here are some of the results, and we will commence where I have been taught that charity should begin, at home. AUCKLAND CITY ELECTORATE. 1003. No. of electors on roll 20.751 No. of valid votes recorded 16,548 1 No. of votes for continuance 7,930 No. of votes for rednction 7,480 No. of votes for no-license 8,302 Result: —No proposal carried, and yet, in a letter which appeared id the New Zealand "Herald" of the 19th inst., it was asserted that "A majority of the electors of Auckland city are in favour of No-License." That statement is certainly not borne out by the above, and is therefore misleading, and may be very untrue. Had such an assertion not been challenged, it would have gone forth to the public as a truth, but it was challenged, and, as a result, the writer admitted in a subsequent letter his error, and the justice of the correction. The next case I will take is that of Wellington's suburb known as the— KEWTOWX ELECTORATE. PERCENTAGE OP VALID VOTES EECORDED. Year. Continuance. Seduction. No-License. 1003 37 p.c. 53 p.c. 60 p.c. 11NX> 41 p.c. 48 p.c 56 p.c No-License was carried there in 1902, but, as everyone knows, the election was subsequently upset for reasons perhaps best known to certain No-License advocates themselves. Tho point, however, is this:—lf the carrying of No-License in 1902 proved such a pronounced success, why was the required majority for it not maintained in 1905? The next case for consideration is the Christchurch Electorate, the home of Messrs. Taylor, Isitt and Co. The figures as given below speak for themselves, and ; certainly indicate the decline of NoLicense in that district:— CHRISTCHTJRCH ELECTORATE. PERCENTAGE OP VALID .VOTES RECORDED. Year. Continuance. Reduction. No-License. 1002 4S p.c. 45 p.c. 48 p.c 1005 53 p.c. 36 p.c 45 p.c Much the same remarks apply to the Lyttelton district, only if anything in a more pronounced manner, and this in face of certain statements made by Mr. G. Laurenson, MJ?., to the contrary, at Lyttelton, and other places recently. LYTTELTON ELECTORATE. PERCENTAGE OF VALID .VOTES HE CORDED. Year. Continuance. Reduction. No-License. 1002 40 p.c. 49 p.c. 51 p.c. 10/3 53 p.c. 36 p.c. 46 p.c Let us now travel a little farther, South until we come to the— ' ASHBURTOX ELECTORATE. PERCENTAGE OF VALID VOTES RECORDED. Year. Continuance. Reduction. No-License. 1002 37 p.c. 54 p.c. 62 p c. l'Mo 52 p.c. 4S p.c These figures produce an eye-opener, and speak volumes as to the utter failure of No-License in that part of the country. Before leaving Ashburton I should just like to remark that during the year 1905 one man alone in that dis° trict collected 500 dozen empty whisky bottles in three months, another person collected 1300 dozen assorted beer and whisky bottles in five and a-half months, and on or about the 22nd December, 1906, there were no less than 40 odd barrels of beer, ranging from five to thirtysix gallons in each, at the Ashburton Railway Station, consigned to various individuals in the neighbourhood. And this in a "No-License" area. Still further south we come to the CHALMERS ELECTORATE. PERCENTAGE OF VALID VOTES . RECORDED. Year. Continuance. Redaction. No-License 1902 36 p.c. 58 p.c 60 p.c. 1000 43 p.c. 48 p.c. 55 p.c. Here again is shown a distinct reversal of public opinion in favour of the Continuance of Licenses. It is noteworthy and remarkable that although prior to 1905 No-License was (regularly and irregularly) carried in six electorates, viz., Newtown, Ashburton, Chalmers, Brure, Clutha, and Mataura, only one of those districts at the 1005 election maintained the three-fifths majority that would have been required to carry No-License had licenses been in existence. There is a still more remarkable aspect to the question, which requires, and should be capable of explanation. I refer, sir, to the votes recorded in 1905 for the Sonth Island as a whole, particulars of which are given herennder:

SOUTH ISLAND EBECTOBATE. PEECENTAGB OF VALID. ypTES RECORDED. w,i' Tear. Continuance. Reduction. -No-license. 1902 46 p.c 45 p.c 51 p.c. 1805 4S p.c 3S p.c. 50 p.c These figures also speak for themselves, and go to show that the NoLicense Vote has not progressed in that part of the Dominion -where the system has been tried in various parts for more than three years, and yet "we have Ministers of the Crown, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and others, including all sorts of anonymous writers (afraid to publish their proper names and addresses), telling us of the glorious success of a system which, when put into operation under the existing licensing laws, only means turning off one tap and turning on another infinitely worse one. The statistics and figures I have quoted are but a few examples. They have not been manufactured, nor are they theoretical stories. They represent actual practical results of what has happened in "God's Own Country."

And now, sir, before I conclude, let mc deal briefly with, a portion of tie contents of an. anonymous letter which appeared in your issue of the 21st inst., signed "A Good Templar." The writer's answer to Mr. Cole's contention that Prohibition is a greater cause of drunkenness than all the hotels that were ever built is characteristic and another example of the narrow-mindedness of such people. The late Premier, when introducing the licensing Bill of 1904 into Parliament, made provision for what might be termed absolute prohibition. But who among others rejected it? If a "Good Templar" will take the pains to look up "Hansard" he will find that the leading lights of the No-License party in the House strongly opposed it, and "what is more, they became partiee to the inclusion of a section in its place (which became law) having for its object the opposite effect, viz., the introduction of alcoholic liquor, under certain conditions, in practically unlimited quantities into No-license districts. —I am, etc., 'J. S. PAWKR, licensee of the Edinburgh Castle Hotel, Symonds-street, Auckland. 30th March, 190 S. : I .•