The Press Monday, March 17, 1919.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16473, 17 March 1919, Page 6

The Press Monday, March 17, 1919.

The Licensing Referendnm. The mail which has just arrived from Britain and America contains a groat deal about tho adoption of the Prohibition amendment by the requisite majority of tho States, and no doubt wo shall soon witness an increased intensity in the appeal of the Prohibitionists for the adoption of America's . example. The common-sense plan would surely lie to wait and see the effect of America's great experiment, and so far as wo can see this is the view of the most responsible organs of opinion in Britain. There it does not appear to be at all widely felt that tho best thing for Britain to do is to adopt Prohibition. Tho significance and importance of tho American decision are noted, but again and again we find in serious and n<st unsympathetic articles tho statement that Prohibition is not likely to appeal to British ideas. Tho wisdom of waiting is emphasised by "The Times," which, after admitting that the Ptohibitionista have every reason

to be proud of their success in America, adds: — But those who have made a real study of the subject, and particularly those who havo investigated it in the United States, will be inclined to suspend judgment until they see what happens. They will wait for the law to come into operation, and they will wait for the results when it does. _ The experiment will be intensely interesting, but it has not vot begun. The peoplo of New Zealand are not presented with a plain choice between Prohibition and Continuance. The issue is complicated by the fact that if Prohibition is carried tho Trade will havo to he paid compensation amounting to -ti millions. When they embraced the policy of compensation the Prohibitionists calculated that they would disarm a good deal of opposition. They are now offering various far-fetched explanations of their abandonment of what had always been a cardinal point of their policy, but everyone who is capable of looking at tho matter without bias —including many frionds of Prohibition—know that the official Prohibitionists' adoption of tho policy of compensation was based purely on opportunism. A not surprising result of thoir volte face in this matter is that their oppononts have been rendored moro numerous. Many people who had quite open minds on tho general issue havo become resentful and suspicious of tho attempt to rush Prohibition on the country at any sacrifica of principle, and at any cost to the public funds. These will assuredly cast their votes for continuance, b&cause by doing so they can hold up tho question for furtlior examination, and for a moro rational and honest treatment of it by the Legislature. There arc many Prohibitionists, too, who reason in this way ':—"lf wo can secure

"a majority now wo can secure a "majority at tho next poll, and wo " cannot sco why we should not aim at " obtaining Prohibition without any "sacrifice either of money t pr princi- " pie." Then thore is a substantial section of the community which, is discontented with the private ownership of broweries and hotels, but which is also opposed to Prohibition. For these tho ballot paper only offers a choice between the two things thoy dislike, lind they may justly claim that to all intents and purposes they will bo disfranchised if they aro to have no opportunity of voting for State control. Even if there were no other considerations, those we have named should be —and wo believe will be— accounted sufficient to warrant the people in declaring that Prohibition cannot' be had on such terms, and through such strategy, as the zealots of the movement have contrived.