PROHIBITION DEPUTATION TO MR MASSEY.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14988, 8 June 1914, Page 8

PROHIBITION DEPUTATION TO MR MASSEY.

NEXT SESSION'S KILL.

FAIR TREATMENT PROMISED.

On Saturday morning in the Provincial Council Chambers the. Prime Minister, the Ri. Hon. W. F. Ma.ssey, j received a-large deputation from local prohibition people and organisations j who urged upon him certain reforms desired by the Prohibition Party in thoj interests of their movement. Mr H. G. j Ell, M.P., introduced the deputation. j

Mr H. Holland said that the threefifths handicap had prevailed for tvrenty yeans, but they now felt the handicap was an almost impossible one, and some reduction should be granted. They wanted tho bare majority, but they wouU be prepared to consider any compromise. The party now knew its strengui, and was determined that this unjust handicap (should be reduced. The Rev. J. Cocker said tho Prohibition Party believed in the bare majority as a final solution. It was tho only just* and fair means or' decieion. Indignation was expressed in many parts Tat the continuance of tho three-fifths majority, and he asked that a fairer means should bo adopted. A sober people was of more importance than any question of revenue. The minority now ruled, in New Zealand, and was making the country the laughing stock of the world. They did not want to become a political party, but if they could not secure what they wanted then they would have to' become a political party. Mr J. MeCoinbs. M.P:, said that the three-fifths majority was an insult to the free people of New Zealand, and they looked to the Prime Minister lo give them some measure of justice. Mr L. M. Isitt, M.P., said that he was as desirous as anyono that reduction should affect both the local option and the national issue polls, but as a niember of Parliament he knew tho actual conditions. The Prime Minister himself knew that there was only one chance of getting the reduced issue through and that was by confining it to the one issue. Ho "wanted it to he distinctly understood that tho Prohibition Party recognised that half a loaf was better than no bread. They did not want Mr Massey to imperil the measure if, in. his judgment, he {.nought it was impossible to get tho Bill through with the reduction of both issues.

THE PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY. In his reply to the deputation, Mr Massey said that he would not discuss the question of prohibition froni any point of view, but ho did not wish the deputation to go away under any misapprehension 3 and so would say at once that he was_ not a prohibitionist. He belonged to tbe Temperance Party. With regard to the Bill, Mr Isitt Had put the position just about as well as he could have put it himself. AVhat some of, the speakers had asked for was reduction on. both issues. If he accented that advice, and made the reduction apply to both, issues, tho Bill would go out on the second reading by a majority of ten. Mr Isitt: Hear, hear. Mr Massey: That is the actual position. If I accept the advice given, the Bill is as dead as Julius Ca?sar. TlieBill, he continued, would be introduced and so far as he could judge, it would pass its second reading. When it got into tho committee stage, opportunities would bo given to any of the members of the House to move any reasonable amendment. Ho would place no difficulties whatever in the way of any member testing tho feeling of the House upon any proposition. The Bill could not bo made a party question— members of Parliament understood.the position as well as himself. On both sides of tho House there were men who were pledged to their constituents —some to the -three-fifths, some totthe bare majority, and somo to the 55 per cent. He did not propose to ask any member to break his pledge. They would vote in accordance with their pledges as given to their constituents. There was no provision, he continued, in tho Bill with regard to reducing the limit of time in which national prohibition would become effective. This was fixed by the law at present at four years, but he would ask the members of the deputation to remember that any change would produce a very radical change in the financial arrangement of the country. He was not in a portion to say what amount of duty was collected yearly from alcoholic liquors, but he believed it was approximately £900,000 per annum. "When that came off, ac it would come off. in of national prohibition being carried, it would have to be provided from some other source, for the country could not do without it. A similar amount would have to be provided either by' direct; or indirect taxation, and it would be for Parliament to say in what direction that tax would be imposed. t Then the people who were engaged in the liquor trade would have to bo considered. Fair treatment wolild have to be meted out to the trade, both on behalf of those who had money invested in it, and for those who received work in connexion with it. He was not, however, expressing any opinion about the limit of four years, but that term would be tested when tho Bill came before the House.

The Bill, Mr Massey promised, would be introduced early in the session— i possibly in the first or second week. This did not mean that it wonld be proceeded with at that tinio, because certain necessary Parliamentary work had to be performed in the early stages of the session, but it would be pushed on at the earliest possible moment. Thero would bo no delay so far as he was concerned, and ho. was pledged to give the Houso an opportunity of dealing witb # tho matter. In conclusion, Mr Massey repeated his statement that he did not take sides with either of the extreme parties. He himself belonged to the temperance side of the question. So far as the brewers were concerned, he would point out that at the present moment fully thres-fourths of tho brewers of the Dominion wero opposed to the present Government. Ho said this without the slightest hesitation —he was not in any way concerned with the interests of the brewers. Tho Bill would have a straight run so far as he was concerned, and ho believed it would pass tlio

Lower House. He could not say what would happen to it in the Upper House, because tho members there were iii no way pledged, but he believed it would have as straight a run there as it would have in the Lower Chamber.