THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 53, 3 March 1919, Page 7

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

(Pufblished by Arrangement.)

DRINK AND CRIME. REPLY TO MR. ARMSTRONG. Rev. R. S. Gray, Dominion organieer of the New Zealand Alliance, writes:— The "investigations" of Mr. Armstrong, secretary of the "Moderate" League, and lecturer in the interests of liquor, are decidedly novel, but not more so than the type of mind which can seriously suggest that murder, rape, carnal knowledge, incest, indecent assault, and perjury increase as a result of drinking cold water and tea, and decrease as a resnlt of drinking alcoholic liquor; in a word, that less drink means more of these a-bominations, and more drink less of them! Mr. Armstrong objects to the inclusion in the no-licence total of no-license areas adjacent to license cities, because they have no courte, and their offences are included in the police returns of the license cities. It is a notorious fact, of which Mr. Armstrong was surely aware, that a large proportion of the offences committed in no-license areas are due to liquor obtained in the adjacent licensed areas. Inspector Mitchell stated in Invercargill that for the previous year, "In all the cases of drunkenness, except one or two, the source whence the liquor was obtained was traceable to places outside the no-license area." Mr. Armstrong should also have been aware that the Invercargill Court is central for a large population living in license areas, and that many cases oceuring outside the no-license area are brought before the Invercargill Court. Did he also forget that all Supreme Court cases, for a population of approximately 56.000, of which not more than 40,000 are in no-license districts, are tried in Invercargill, a no-licence town? Aβ a matter of fact the location of Supreme Courts affects tho question both wave, and the only reasonable and fair method is to deal with actual population' in both cases. MASTERTON. His "investigation"' in this place, not lending itself to his method of selection, he falls back on weak deductions from the vote for restoration. Every intelligent man knows that: — (1) The Trade constantly seeks to discredit no-license in these areas, first Ivy conniving at breaches of the law, and second by concentrating upon them at election time; and (2) no-license areas, after a period, loee their fear of rever-1 sion to license, and, therefore, fight lesa strenuously. - j In spite of these facts no no-license area has ever gone back to license, a rather striking commentary upon the ".Moderate" League's contention! X 0 LICENSE AND CRIME. Mr. Armstrong's method is delightfully simple. The proportion of crime for the whole Dominion is 31.5 per thousand. It is necessary to make the proportion in no-license arras more than this, and since he cannot increase the actual number of crimes, there is only one thing left, he must reduce the population. 11<- docs this by no less than 65.000, and so makes the per thousand rate 32.2, or just about double the actual rate. His justification is that the crime of suburban no-license districts is charged to license cities, bnt he conveniently forgets, as I have said, that a very considerable proportion of crime charged to no-li«ense districts comes from, and ofton occurs in license areas. His tables are prepared in the same delightfully simple way. If he took the total offences for the Dominion, even omitting drunkenness, he would show the following: — Per 1000 Arrests, of Population. Dominion 4«,490 42.2 C No-license area 3.256 10.33 It is therefore New Zealand's proved experience that no-license reduces crime to leas than half. But that would never do, so he not only reduces the populallon, but he makes a careful selection. He does not exclude only technical oifences, which can have nothing to do with license or no-license, but literally thousands that constitute the bulk of the criminal offences of the country. He chooses, certainly, some of the mora serioTie crimes, but they are so few by comparison with the total that deductions as to crime and its causes are palpably impossible, except to a partisan, who must prove bis case at any cost. His total selected crimes, out of 46,4i)0 arrests, amount for tho Dominion to only 144, and for no-license to only 23, and so he adds destitution and selling liquor without a license, which ehould be "worse in a no-license area, as long as the right wing of the Moderate party persists in breaking the law. He rigorously excludes, among others:—lndecent, riotous and offensive conduct; obscene, threatening or abusive language; assaulting or obstructing the police; soliciting prostitution; vagrancy; common assault and theft; which total:—For the Dominion, 7526, or per thousand of population, 6.84; for no-license, 493, or per thousand of population, 2.81. That is considerably less than half as many in the no-license areas. The following table is for the year 1914, and is taken from the same return as that quoted by Mr. Armstrong viz., H. 28, 1915, and "Blue Book, "Law and Crime," 1914: — For per 1000 Population, calculation No- 1000 calDominion. as License, dilation. 1,063,000 1,100,000 169,894 170,000 In Mr. Armstrong's table for the Dominion, he not only omits drunkenness, but does not refer at all to the following:— DOMINION. industrial Schools **w^ Breach of Beer Duty Act 10 _ Drunkenness 12,835 n fifiS Drunk with disorderly conduct 253 Habitual drunkenness... 140 Prohibition orders 2 53S *> W7 Indecent. riotous and offensive conduct 1,259 117° Obscene, threatening or abusive language 1,124 1021 Assaulting, resisting, or obstructing the police. 287 ->61 Soliciting prostitution.. 114 I_ Vagrancy 1,134 i.031 Licensing by publicans.. 170 Common assault 030 845 Theft 2,(HS 2^07 Wilful damage to property 612 .556 Selling liquor without license 16!) .153 NO-LICENSE DISTRICT®. Offences. Per 1000. Industrial Schools 28 lg 4 ' (I/ess than half licensed average) ©reach of Beer Duty Act None. Drunkenness 453 2.664 (About ODe quarter of licensed average ) Drunk with disorderly conduct None. Habitual Drunkenness.. None. Prohibition orders !M .550 (Less than a quarter of licensed average ) Indecent, riotous and offensive conduct 101 .594 (About one half licensed average.) Obscene, threatening or abusive language 83 .488 (Leas tiaa half licensed average^

Assanlting, resisting, or obstructing the police. 19 .111 (Less than half licensed average.) Soliciting prostitution.. None. Note thie. Vagrancy 48 .282 (One quartet of licensed average.) iLicensing pj publicans None. — Common assault 64 .376 (Less than half licensed average.) Theft 178 1.047 (Less than half licensed average.) Wilful damage to property 95 .55S Selling liqnor without license 69 .405 As an instance of his methods of "investigation" his second table is a flagrant illustration. He compares Riecarton with Ashburton. All the Ashburton offences and a good many from outside are tried within the electorate. Ihere is only one Court in Riccarton, situated in the small country town Darfield. Twothirds of the electors of Riccarton live in the suburbs of Christchurch, and their offences are tried there, but Mr. Armstrong actually cites the Court returns of Darfield as though they represented I the whole of Riccarton. This official representative of the "Moderate" League surely takes the palm lor holiest "investigation." "Mr. Armstrong's last table of comparisons between no-license and licensed districts is just as disingenuous as the preceding one. Invercargill, Oamaru, Mataura, Clutha and Bruce, all have large towns within their area; Waitaki, Awaroa, Otago Central, Whakatipu and Wallace, which he quotes for license, have none. TESTIMONY FROM THE BENCH. Mr. Armstrong's main contention as to serious crime is refuted not only by the above facts, hut by the opinion of Supreme Court Judges, magistrates and criminal authorities throughout the world. Mr. Armstrong- cays that if you carry prohibition you will have nearly four times as many murders, ten times as much rape, twice as much incest, six times as many indecent assaults, etc. Judge Murray, of the New South Wales Supreme Court, in passing , sentence for manslaughter, said: "As was often the case, that horrible murder — he could call it by no other name —was committed when the prisoner was drunk. ... If it were not for those men who make it their business, those men who ruined and damned both body and soul by selling drink under all circumstances and conditions to make a living out of this wretched and disgusting trade, offences such as the prisoner had committed would never happen." The late Mr. Justice Grantham, replying to a resolution of the Croydon (England) Licensed Victuallers and Beereellers' Protection Society regretting his lordship's "vile aspersions upon persons engaped in a lawful and respectable trade," wrote as follows: — "I have lately been brought face to face for weeks with the conduct of publicans in the carrying on of their business which ha-s resulted in the most heartbreaking crimes that it is possible to imagine—husbands murdering their wives, wives their husbands, fathers their sons, friends their own best friends —aH through the maddening influence of excessive drinking. Twelve murders and eighteen attempts at murder that were just as likely to have ended in murder as far as the conduct of the criminal was concerned have been mine and my brother Judges' daily fare for the last four weeks in one circuit; and in almost every case, as appeared in evidence, drink was the cause—drink served by publicans and not at clubs, and drink proved to have been served in the publichouse, where the man was openly drunk." Whether Mr. Armstrong's opinion ontweighs the deliberate judgment of these Supreme Court Judges and of other Judges, magistrates, police officials and gaolers, intelligent and unprejudiced electors may be left to determine.