"NO-LICENSE" IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 274, 18 November 1910, Page 4

"NO-LICENSE" IN NEW SOUTH WALES.

{From An Australian Correspondent.) SXDNEY, "November 12. New Zealand was always different. The no-license vote cast at the recent New South Wales election gives a clear perception of the difference. "T_u. Trade-" prints proudly this comparison of New South Wales votes cast at the polls of 1907 and 1910. 1907. 1910. Continuance--WO,-47- 32-390—Increase _15,_0ft Reduction . 75,708 3S,Sl3—decrease 36,693 No-L_cense 178,8-2 212,786—mcrease' 33,9__ Electorates for continance . 25 76—increase 81 Electorates for reduction 61 14—decrease 50 Electorates for. No-li- ✓ cense .. —> — The comparison, it will be seen, is all in favour of liquor: New South Wales is definitely not "on the side of the angels." The reason is that the angels have not interposed. The -women of New South Wales ihave shown no such crusading virtue as the women of New Zealand show. That interesting figure in New' Zealand —the missionary girl who pleads with her "hoy" to vote no-license—has not been heard of in New South Wales. The sex has not maintained' its moral* tradition. "No-license" is not yet understood in New South Wales. Despite all that has been written and printed,- there exists a belief that "no-license" means no liquor. If I correctly interpret what I have heard and what I have read, this belief may be said -to prevail. lam sure, at least, that many people voted for "no-license" who thought that they were voting the curse of drink right out of the State. Many people, on the other hand, voted " Cdnt__ua___e " in order that the' poor man migfit not be robbed of his beer. Such things as the Gore and __rve_carg__ breweries -existing contemporaneously with no-license are never dreamed of by the ordinary New Sooth Wales elector. It will he seen that his- ignorance leaves ample room far education. On the figures, it would seem that the anti-liquor party, while the necessary education is proceeding, would do- "well to drop " no-license" and devote it 3 energies to "reduction." If it cannot gang it had better creep. In creeping, of course,.it would attract a certain pi-poi*-tion of votes, from the "Continuance" side. If the cry, instead of "No bars," (mistaken as meaning " No liquor") were " Fewer bars," it is likely that the moderate party in the -ommunity would rally ■to its aid.

The New South Wales vote _-p-_s_nts to some extent the difference between the Australian and the New Zealander. I have no doubt that the New Zealander is a more serious citLzen. As a serious citizen foe is less impatiei-t of communal restraint and more inclined to subject himself to restraint from a conscientious motive. It is his duty, and he does. The Australian is in-patient Of restraint, and does not easily tolerate the least infringement on his personal liberty. The New Zealander feels that the open bar is a ternptai-on to others; he votes to close it. The Australian feels that the open bar is no particular temptation to him, and his sense of individuality is comparatively so small that he argues to himself, and not to others. That is the difference as I see it. The New Zealander is rather a man for his country. The Australian is rather a T_-ri of the world