THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 62, 13 March 1919, Page 8

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

(Published by Arrangement)

REV. GRAY'S FIGURES CRITICISED. NO-LiCENSE AND CRIME. Commenting on the Rev. R. S. Grays statement regarding crime in the Nolicense areas which appeared in our issue of 3rd March, Mr R. A. Armstrong (secretary of the New Zealand Moderate League) etates that the article in question has just come under his notice, ac the League representatives have been in the far south travelling every day, and J speaking to large audiences every night, ! and go have not been able to keep closely in touch with criticisms as they I would have liked. He wished first to I point out that the Rev*. Gray's calculations are all based on the total population of all the "dry" areae, including those suburban districts -where there are no courts, the offences in which are trieu in, and debited to. the "wet" districts. From the public platform, and twice in the columne of this peper, Mr Armstrong hue pointed out the fallacy of such a calculation, and now states that the Rev. Gray's persistence in this matter can only lie viewed as a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Deducting the suburban areas, the population for the other "dry" districts ie 102,000, whereas Mr Gray ba-ses hie calculations • on a. population of 170,000. In I spite of this persistence in error Mr. ' Gray had challenged the inclusion of Kiccarton in a comparison with Ashburton because lie claimed, while admitting that there was a court in Kiccarton (Darfield) that it was a suburban area, and many of the offences committed therein were tried in Christchurch. In making this complaint about Riecarton, Mr. Gray had completely and finally endorsed the contention that the suburban '"dry" areas of Eden, Grey Lynn, Wellington South and Wellington .Suburbs, should not be included in any calculations mnde relating to offences committed in No-license districts. This being the case, the whole of Mr. Gray's figures and deductions made therefrom must fall to the ground. If the calculations were based upon the population of "dry"' districts eliminating the suburban areas, which was the only fair

test, it would be found by any impartial j investigator who cared to check Mr. I Gray's figures that the particular classes ;of offences quoted by him compared but J little favourably with the whole Domini ion, being in most cases almost equal in J proportion, while the classes of offences I previously quoted, 6uch as offences [again* the person, sexual offences, illegitimacy, and. perjury were all in excess in the No-license districts, and even Mr. Gray could not produce figures to disprove this contention. Instead he fell back upon the old Prohibitionist trick of putting words into the mouth cf hie opponent and proceeding to argue from them. Mr. Gray had stated:—"Mr. Armstrong says 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."' Such a statement had never been made by him and he would challenge Mr. CJray to produce proof that lie had ever vofted , such an opinion. His comparisons of crime in No-License districts had been Drought forward not to show that these districts were any worse than the rest of the Dominion, but to prove that they were no better, and to prove the fallacy of the contention of the Report of " the National Efficiency Board where on the one point upon which it made a definite statement as to the reasons for recommending prohibition it said:— "This view is supported by reeults obtained in our own country under conditional prohibition. ,. The figures produced by the Rev. Gray, if examined by any m> partial investigator, would tbe seen at once to be a valuable supplement to the investigation already published proving that the No-Lieenee districts were generally no better off in regard to offences, and'in Some instances much worse off than the wet districts of the Dominion taken as a whole. In this respect the Efficiency Board's report must go by the board, and in view of the proved fallacy of their contention on the one point upon which they were deiirilc. it behoved electors to look with extreme caution on the vague theories indulged in by them and their supporters as to what will happen if prohibition is carried in New Zealand. Mr. Armstrong added that he observed the Rev. Gray put forward the total offences for the Dominion, omitting drunkenness, as 4(i,490. As the convictions only for drunkenness (not arrests) totalled 13,48(1, this would bring Mr. Gray's grand total of arrests to at least 50,070, whereas the actual total shown in the Blue Book, f.aw and Crime, 11)14 page 2in. is r>0.9711. Mr. Gray's little error meant an addition of 0000 to the offences of the Dominion. Perhaps he would give details of how he arrived at his figures: certainly the official statistics did not support llr. Gray's contentions. 'Wit!: regard to the quotations of .fudge Murray, N.R.W., and Mr. Justice Grantham, of England, thes-e can only be road as strictures upon the manner in which the "Trade" in some instances conducts its business under the system of private control and the Moderate Leasue has to thank the Rev. Gray for a further contribution to its already strong case in favour of State ownership, which the electors can secure if they wish in December by voting for Continuance on April 10th.