THE DRINK BILLA NATIONAL LOSS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 55, 6 March 1911, Page 7

THE DRINK BILLA NATIONAL LOSS.

(To-theJEdltorJ^

Sir,—" 'Ttufch , is stronger than fiction" in his laborious attempt to deal with the economic aspect of the Drink Bill—La, ifche cost to the country of alcoholic liquors. So far from the article being "the account accurately etated," it is decidedly inaccurate, illogical, and misleading. Taking "the real problems for consideration," as "Truth" puts them— "(1) Whether or not the coet of the materials . used in beverages consumed represents wasted money"—if ifc can be proved that alcoholic liquor Iβ unnecessary for the health of the body (leaving out entirely its harmful effects in many cases), then the answer must be as stated in "Truth's" second problem "The expenditure is a distinct loss to the consumer himself," and also to the country. It is absurd to compare this expenditure with that on "good clothes, tea, coffee, elaborate houses, books, motor-cars, and trams." Excepting tea and coffee, these things remain for a longer or ehorter time with us, and their utility and power to confer utility and happiness are undisputed. "Truth" is on quite safe ground when he suggest* that the expenditure, of over two millions per annum on the totalieator is equally wasted. That is- an evil, too, from an economic point of view, and must go. And that must be the answer to "Truth's" third problem as to "whether the money spent on drink would be saved if not spent on drink." If "Truth" is anxious to emphasise- the virtue of saving, let him remember that ho is cutting the ground from under his own feat. 1 know that at least a large portion of it would be diverted into more useful channels. It is merely childish to assume that humanity is so bad that if you remove one evil it will deliberately set to work to invent another. Only fools and devils could wish to live in such a world. Tihat ever-increasing body of men and women who have struggled all through the ages to uplift thoir fellow-beings give the lie to such an assumption.

In conclusion, I would point out that the three and a-half millions epent on drink (alcoholic) is only the cost to the publican. The gros9 profits range from 25 to 100 per cent, and the cost to the consumer must t>e over £5,000,000. It is probable that only one person in. five (counting men, women, and children) consumes alcoholic drink Tegularly, and thus you get some idea of the harm done and the excesses of the regular drinker. The tone of "Truth's" article was moderate, and I trust I have (it least copied him in that. —I am, etc, .; ; iAUKKNCE JOHNSTONE. (Tt> the Editor.) Sir, —In the so-called "Fallacy Exposed," it is obvious that "Truth" and fact are not synonymous terms. I have read about the liquor traffic in most of the civilised countries of the world, but have never yet read oi it being defended as a financial benefit to any community. How is it possible? The nation is but an aggregate of individuals. In all my experience, I have found that the man who is the best customer to the public house is the .worst to ibona-fide trades. The universal awakening of the nations is mainly owing to their realisation of this truth.. American railway magnates, because of the cool dollar proposition, say: "If wo employ you, you must-ab-stain from liquor." Why? "Becauseyou are less efficient if you don't, and we, at all events, won't have you." In our ; own Dominion we often read of steamers that cannot leave the harbours because of the intemperance of some of the crew. Germany is saying in distinctive tones: "Alcohol impairs efficiency; the latter we must have, so alcohol is under the official .ban." Japan has long said the same thing. Lord Roberts, In the Red River expedition, in the cold North, for a similaT reason, had none of it. That was the reason that aft Lyttelton recently the beer sent as a present to the Antarctic expedition was returned —not wanted. In the Soudan, Lord Kitchener won his victories without alcohol, and when he found that some traders were following the camp with liquor 'he confiscated tiio lot, and bad it poured out on the sandy desert. The medical world is talking the same way, vide the recent International Medical Congress of the World. True leaders of men are being convinced that the human machine is unfitted to burn alcohol; it suits motors, but not st6machs. Even the liquor-sellers advertise for total abstainers for barmen. What next? Why, national .prohibition, sure! Truth" is concerned about the loss the fanners may have should no more barley be required for malting. Tho America-n farmer's reply to a similar question is appro. He eaid: "We shall raise more hog 3, and less hell." Before I give my little Sum, I wish to protest against "Truth's" cool assumption of claiming that if the liquor traffic is outlawed, the whole of the 10,000 persons employed in 'the hotels, etc., will be out of employment. At the outside estimate, only 4,000 -will be. Another assumption is that the wagee average £150 per year. This item, I hope, will not escape the notice of the Barmen's Union. The Government Year Book gives 465 employees in the various breweries who receive in .wages £57,327; at £150 per year they would receive £71,750; the difference is worth asking for. "Truth" admits that 'the uso of less liquor would probably mean more food. There is no probability about it; it's a fact in every home. Not only more food, but more clothing, more furniture, more ooots, etc. And these articles employ more la/bour than the same amount of money spent in , beer; they also pay duty. So everybody, bar the liquor trafficker, is better off. In the following balance-sheet, I have underestimated the debits, and "•iven some credits omitted by "Truth":— " *• * One year's expenditure on liquor 4,500,000 Partial cost of liquor-produced crime, prisons, L. asylums, C. Aid, etc 400,000 Inebriates' Homes 5,000 Estimate of 1000 lives lost owing to the traffic 240,000 Cost of collecting liquor revenue. 8,000 Cost oi licensing elections 7,000 Total £5,1G0,000 Cγ. £ Taxation collected by the Trade 758,783 Col. Treasurer's estimate for rail freights 75,000 Spent in barley and hops 250,0|i0 Wages of 4000 persons at £150.. GOO.OOO Kent, Ins., etc , 250,000 * 1.933,783 Financial loss 3.226,217 Total 5,160,000 I am, etc., OBSERVER. ["Justice" sends a letter, expressing views similar to those enunciated by Mr. L. Johnstons and "Observer." Mr. A. Camming also lyrites in the same strain.}.