The Press. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1896. WHAT DO PROHIBITIONISTS WANT?

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9584, 26 November 1896, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1896. WHAT DO PROHIBITIONISTS WANT?

We are sorry'to find that the official organ of the prohibitionists urges that party to disregard all general questions of politics in the present contest, and confine itself solely to the issue of prohibition. Ifc says :—

" The first question to bo asked concerning any candidate after his character is known to be morally sound, is not—ls he Liberal or Conservative 1 but—ls ho or is he not willing to give the people of New Zealand the completes, control over the liquor traffic ? " '

The colony may be suffering, as it undoubtedly is, tinder maladministration of the worst kind. Its rulers, as the Proldbitionist itself is continually telling u_. ai'e recklessly extravagant and politically corrupt. They are" ready to set aside the sanctity of contracts, to Qver-ride the judgments of our Courts, and to sacrifice the liber-' ties and confiscate tho property of the Queen's subjects in this part of her dominions. Ministers league themselves with foreign monopolists and some of them enter their service as paid officials. The Prohibitionist denounces all these things, but when the only time for setting right such abuses has come, it says, in effect, that they are of no consequence, that they may bo disregarded, that such scandals may be allowed to continue for an indefinite time, always provided a more drastic liquor law is passed.

What is there that the prohibitionists have yet to gain that they are prepared to throw the question of good government and sound finance to the winds in this way ? We ask the more moder&te-ininded men and women, even amongst the prohibitionists themselves, to give this question their careful and candid conj sideration. They have at present the most drastic liquor law in force in the whole of the Australasian Colonies. By a three-fifths majority in each j district they can, on the 4th December next, close up every public-house in New Zealand. Even by a bare majority they can attain the same result just as effectually, although more gradually, by voting for reduction at each sue- | cessive poll until they have brought down the number of licensed houses ■ to the vanishing point. They have special inspectors appointed in addition to the police to look after hotels, and the law for the regulation of the traffic is most stringent if it is only properiy applied. What more do they want? . We will let tbe Prohibitionist furnish the reply. It says :— " Prohibitionists should require from can-

d.dates for their suffrages pledges to support the granting of national option, tho carrying of the local Option poll by a bare majority, and the bringing of Clubs under the same control H3 hotels."

Lot us take these points in the revorse order. If the Clubs break the law the persons guilty of such breach can be punished under existing legislation. To make them subject in every respect to the same provisions as licensed houses would be an unwarrantable intrusion lon private life, and would defeat one !of the main objects for which working ! men's clubs at any rate were formed, Those institutions were started largely as a counter-attraction to the publichouse, to supply their members with recreation amid more innocuous surroundings. The prohibitionists apparently want to turn them into publichouses pure and simple. This we regard as an unwarrantable proceeding so far as regards the members of those clubs which are, as a rule, very well conducted, and we entirely fail to see how it is going to help the cause of temperance. Secondly, it will be seen the extreme prohibitionists want the bare majority principle applied to local option. The question naturally arises, do they want the closing of public-houses, when it is on to be permanent, or do they want a continual see-saw—the houses closed as the result of one poll, and reopened as the result of another, according as public feeling ebbs and flows ? * The see-saw system would be tbe inevitable result of the bare majority plan. On the other hand with the three-fifths majority, it is tolerably certain that when once the hotels are closed they will not be opened again. The publican party iin Clutba are now the strongest agitators for the bare majority. With this they might succeed in getting the present decision reversed, but it takes a tremendous revulsion of feeling to turn a three-fifths majority in favour of closing public-houses into a threefifths majority in favour of re-openiug them. Lastly, the ultra party, led by the Prohibitionist, want national option. Do nine-tenths of the people who repeat the phrase realise what it means? Do they picture for a moment what an absolute tyranny and despotism it represents ? Local option is moderation itself in comparison. Under local option it is true one section of the people of Christchurch would be able to restrict the personal liberty of the other section in regard to what they should drink. But at least the tyranny in this case would bo exercised by people who know something of the local circumstances, who are in our midst to be' met by our arguments, our entreaties, or if necessary by our resistance. Under national option a preponderance of prohibitionists in the extreme south of this island, in the extreme north of the other island, or at the seat of Government, would be able to exercise this tyranny over us. People who had never seen Christohurch would be able to tell us-, that we should be bettor without any stimulants, and would be able to onforce their views oh this subject by keeping stimulants out of the place.- Even prohibitionists must admit that eircurastat-ces vary—that the need of alcohol, or its supposed need, if they like that way of putting it better, varies with climate and other local causes. The residents of a warm climate like Auckland may be better without whisky ; the dwellers on the raw, misty, rain and wind-swept plains of Southland may find it necessary to their existence. Under national option, however, the people of Auckland would have the power, in common-with other parts of the colony, of forcing absolute prohibition on the people of Southland, however much the victims might be inclined to resent it. Under the Aot dragooned through the Lower House by the Seddon Government last Session, but from which the Legislative Council saved us, if the national option poll were carried, it would become illegal'to manufacture or import a single ounce of alcoholic liquor to be used as a beverage in any part of New Zealand, and not an ounce could be sold, even for. medicinal purposes, until it had been rendered nauseous to the taste. '-. We appeal'to the moderate-minded members of the prohibitionist party to know whether they are really serious in attempting to force this tyranny on-this unfortunateoolony ? Are they so bigoted, ao relentless, as to still say that the colony may go to, the dogs in its finance and administration, so far as they are concerned, provided only they get national option and the b>re majority? Wo believe that only the most blind, extreme, unthinking fanatics tlike this view. We believe that the vast bulk, even of the prohibition party, will be content for the present*with the Act as it now stands, that they will endeavour to get a purer administration in office, knowing that if they see good men are selected as our rulers, not only will the colony be better governed as a whole, but the Licensing Act, as well as other Acts, will be more effectively carried, out. Those who hold thfs view'Sffould certainly vote for Messrs Lewis, Beswick and Donnelly. Those gentlemen have pledged themselves to maintain the present Act in its integrity; they are equally pledged to use every effort to bring about a purer administration.