THE TEMPERANCE PARTY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 33, 8 February 1910, Page 7

THE TEMPERANCE PARTY.

TWO SHADES OF OPINION.

MR. W. RICHARDSON V. N.Z, ALLIANCE.

A meeting of some interest to the temperance or no-license party in the city of Auckland was held in the V.M.C.A. rooms last night. Perhaps the gathering ought not to be called a meeting. It was rather a debate between Mr. Yγ". Richardson,- leader of the Auckland Temperance Crusaders, on the one hand, and Mr. \Y. J. Macdermott, a local member of the New Zealand Alliance, on the other. The debate arose but of a challenge issued by Mr. Richardson to Mr. Macdermott, alleging the truth of his statement that the New Zealand Alliance platform and policy originally, or at any subsequent period, embraced the legislative suppression and prohibition of the personal use of intoxicating liquors as beverages. The adjudicators in the debate were a committee of eighteen, consisting of nine persons nominated by either disputant.

The members of the committee were as follow: — (Nominated by Mr. Macdermott) Messrs. C. G. Hill, J. C. Entrican, J. Mitchell, A. Thorne, F. M. King, R. French, G. Gladding, H. Field, and H. Scott; (nominated by Mr. Richardson) — Mesdnmes Hannan, Crowe, Wakelin, Miss Wakelin, Messrs. S. Rout, J. H. Hannan, J. Moss, Wakelin, and Walsh. Mr. S. C. Brown was chairman.

Mr. Richardson opened by quoting from old numbers of Alliance papers, with intent to show that at one time the policy of the Alliance was absolute prohibition, which was, in his opinion, very different from no-lioense. He argued that no-license was not by any nutans a bar to the sale of liquor. He knew that it prevented the sale of liquor by the pint, but it did not prevent the sale and purchase of it by the gallon or the hogshead or the shipload. In nolicense areas the consumption of liquor was not prevented, was. he thought, scarcely diminished. The railways carried liquor into so-called prohibited areas, and wagon-loads of the stuff was taken into Grey Lynn every day. The altered platform of the Alliance, by which they attempted to catch the "vote of the moderate drinker by telling him that he would be permitted to have liquor in his house, but would not 'be permitted to buy it in the bar of a public-house, was, in his opinion, inconsistent with temperance principles. He favoured the notorious and mucih-shrieked-at clause 9 of the late Mr. Seddon's bill, which had been condemned as inquisitorial, and argued that it was not more inquisitorial than legislation in some of the American States. He stated, also, that there was an opinion current in reform circles in England that home-drinking was worse than public-house drinking. In his own opinion, the public house was bad only because it sold drink; the real evil was the drink. He pointed out that the Alliance had made its fatal mistake in 1002, the year it' gained its firat majority (3000) at'the polls, and he thought that now, when they had had a majority of 33,000. they ought to go back to their old platform, or vacate their positions in favour of people of morn spirit.

Mr. Macdermott, in reply, said that the fight of the Alliance was against the trade, and not against the beverage use of liquor. They wished rather to save from the evils of drink the men who. so long as liquor was to be obtained legally, would obtain it. He absolutely denied that the New Zealand AUianc-e had ever fought against the use of liquor. That work was undertaken by other societies. Personally, the members of the Alliance. who wore all teeto t-allers, wished to see the use of liquor absolutely stopped, but for the present that could not be done. It was not a feasible proposition to have it included in a local option bill, particularly by the agency of such a provision as that contained in clause 9. Under our system of small licensing areas it would be impossible to have such a law. It might, under some circumstances, make a criminal of a man who crossed the street from his own hou3e and bought that which the law of the State allowed him. to buy. He urged the advisability of uniting under one flag all the enemies of the liquor trade, and that object the Alliance sought to further. However, the Alliance was not against the bar trade only, but against any and every form of license under which liquor could be sold.

Mr. Richardson replied briefly to Mr. Macdermott, and Mr. Macdermott replied to him, and then a vote was taken. The result of the ballot was that nine voted in favour of Mr. Richardson and nine in favour of Mr. Macdermott, and as the chairman had no casting vote, he could only declare the result a draw. The proceedings were quiet and orderly throughout, and the speeches free from any ■bitterness or anything indicating personal animus 'between the disputants. It ought to be stated in reference to the debate that Mr. Maedermot't did not officially represent the New Zeaknd Alliance.