"WET" V. "DRY."

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 236, 2 October 1920, Page 17

"WET" V. "DRY."

BATTLE JOINED IN SCOTLAND. (From Our Special Correspondent.) , LONDON, August 17. The long-threatened "dry" compaign in the United Kingdom has now commenced in earnest, but thue far the great offensive of the "Pussyfoot" army is confined to Scotland, where a great battle with Prohibition for its objective is being waged as a result of an Act passed seven years ago. The measure is known as the Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913, and under the first section it is provided that its power shall become operative "on the expiration of eight years from the first day of June, 1919," which bringß us to the present year of grace. Ten per cent, of the electors of any ward— fewer than 400U electors —of a large borough may make an effective demand for a poll on "the drink question." The same right can be exercised in any .smaller burgh or combined* small wards or country parish. •Such, requisitions will be handed in during next month all over Scotland, and if the •pTovtsions of tho y Act have been complied with the local authority has forthwith to give notice of a poll by ballot, which will take place cither in November or December. The electors will have submitted to them three choices—first, no change in the existing licensing (facilities; secondly, a reduction of one-quarter in the number of licenses for the sale of excisable liqtnrs; and, thirdly, complete prohibition, except as reglirds inns, hotels, and restaurants, the main business of which consists of tnej supply of meals. The Act lays down that "if 55 per cent, at least of the votes recorded are in favour of a-no-license resolution and not less than 35 per cent, of the electors for such areas on the register have voted in favour thereof, such resolution shall be deemed to 'be carried." Each elector has, of course, only one vote, but it is arranged that if the prohibitionists fail to get the requisite proportion on their side, all their votes shall be regarded as being in favour of ''the limitation resolution?' If, when thi3 transfer from the extremists to the platform of moderation has been made, it is found that there is a majority for reduction ol licenses, and that that majority represents 35 per cent, of the el-ectore, then at least one-quarter of the licenses in that particular burgh, ward, or parish will be extinguished. Finally, should a bare majority be obtained for "no change," or should neither of the other resolutions be carried, tljere will be an armistice for three years, when the battle of the polls will be joined again. It will be seen that under this Act the strict teetotallers and the moderate reformers, each holding I their separate points of view, may, in the event of the former failing, find themselves in the same fold. The provision opens up a double possibility to those who \vbuld entirely extinguish the retail drink trade,." for if they do not get all they desire their votes will go to swell the demand for a 25 per cent, reduction in the number of licenses. Should the poll go in favour of either- prohibition or limitation, the resolution will become effective on May 28, 1921.

What with the intervention of war and serious domestic troubles, we who live douth of the Tweed had well-nigh lost sight of the fact that the liquor issue was to be fought out in Scotland this year. Those resident north of that river have, however, had the matter kept well in front of them, preparations for the campaign having been in active progress in Scotland for many months pa3t. The Prohibitionists were first in the field, and have simply swamped the country with "literature." Now the opposition has woke up, and the battle of "wet" v. "dry" rages furiously from John o' Groats to the' Mull of Galloway. There is no certainty as regards the results, but it is quite clear that "the trade" is by no means confident ot securing a decisive victory, and is "fearful" as regards many areas.

From this side of the Tweed we are watching the battle with keen interest,

for if Scotland or any considerable portion of it goes "dry" that event would certainly react on England. Our southern drink purveyors' have hitherto affected to scorn the very idea of John Bull voting for a "dry" England, but it is to bo noted that "'the trade" here is to-day spending a. large amount of money in propaganda of divers kinds calculated to wake up its patrons to "Pussyfoot's" insidious attempts to deprive them of the right to "take a glass" when they feel so disposed. One of their leading pieces of 'literature is a bill designed to chow all and sundry that prohibition inevitably means a vast increase in direct taxation —a thing dreaded by everybody. It is shown, for example, that every bottle of whisky sold retail at 12/6 —the control price—provides the Government with 8/04. No doubt many a man who for himself does not care a rap whether hie neighbour can got "a drink" or not. and might vote for prohibition because he was not personally influenced by the absence of liquor, would be considerably influenced by the knowledge that curtailment of his compulsorily "dry" neighbour meant a considerable addition to his own contribution to the revenue.