STATE CONTROL OR TYRANNY.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17628, 4 December 1922, Page 12

STATE CONTROL OR TYRANNY.

SOLUTION OF LIQUOR PROBLEM.

MODERATE LEAGUE'S PROPOSALS. ADDRESS BY ME B. A. ARMSTRONG

All the available seating accommodation in the Theatre Boyal wa3 occupied last night on the occasion of the address by Mr E. A. Armstrong, Dominion secretary of the New Zealand Moderate League on "Cartoons and Couplets." The audience was an appreciative one, and the speaker was frequently and warmly applauded. Mra J. J. Dougall, president of the Canterbury Executive cf the Moderate League, presided, and among those on the platform with lym were Dr. I>. G. Le%-inge (chairman of the executive), Dr. John Guthrie, Mr John Anderson, jun., Mr A. McKellar, Professor T. G. ».• Blunt, Mr Joseph Studhoime, Mr E. W. Walker, Mr G.Jameson, Dr. Ross, Mr W. F. Herrick, Mr A. L. Cropp, and Dr. C. Morton Anderson. The meeting was opened with tho singing of a verse of tho National Anthem.

Chairman's Kemarks. The chairman said that Mr Armstrong hardly needed to bo introduced; he had been in Christchurch before, and was well known throughout New Zealand. Mr Armstrong had given deep study to tho liquor question, and also to State Control as it existed in various parts of the world. The members of tho Moderate Leaguo were very gratified indeed at the success which they believed had, bo far, Qrowned the efforts made by the League to mako the people of tho Dominion acquainted with the principles of State Control. While they frankly admitted that the public was not yet sufficiently educated to carry the Stato Control issue next Thursday, they did believe that there would be such a vote in favour of it that the Government would ba compelled to tako cognisance of the fact that there was a great number of the people of the Dominion who neither believed in Continuance as it existed at present, nor in Prohibition. (Applause.') Hitherto tho voter had no option'but to vote for Continuance or 'Prohibition, and they that many people had voted Prohibition a3 a protest against "the trade," and because they had no other alternative. They now had that alternative, though it was not in the form that the League would like to see it. As it appeared 011 the Statute Book it was a matter that involved a large amount of money. To tako over all the licensed hosues it was estimated by some would mean £10,000,000 to £13,000,000. The League held that the State should take only thoso houses that it required. Mr Massey had promised, if he was returned to power, and if Promibition was not carried, to so anient! tho law —probably in the first session of the new Parliament —as to drastically alter the existing law, and also put Stato Control on tho Statute Book_ in the form that those who believed in Stato Control desired. They welcomed criticism of the League, for it showed that the League's policy was being taken seriously. A few months ago they were derided.. It was true that a certain section of the public still asserted that they were in league with "the trade." The Leaguo had given that statement an emphatic denial, and the men connected with the Leaguo occupied such positions in the community that their denial ought to be* accepted. The League was in no way connected with "the trade what it was doing, it was doing off its own bat. State Control had been tried, and the League was not putting before the people an untried experiment. The Carlisle experiment in England had proved successful, and had met with the approbation of temperance reformer in England, who gave it their unstinted approval; some went bo far as to 6ay that it was the real solution of the Liquor question. The,"N.Z. Methodist Times," of November 25tli, referring to this npnroval of the Carlisle experiment, had commented that "in drinkridden Old England tliev were glad to mako wen a little progress tow rds national sobriety." That was <l statement Mr Dougall said, that ouaht not to be made by any sane, rkrht-thmking man or woman, because it was uitrue. (Applause.) The Prohibitionists asked them to follow the example of America —a country that took three years before entering the war. during which time ti raked in the shekels till it was gorged and glutted with wealth. When the war was over,_ America imposed terms of pence which were really obnoxious to the other Allies, and these terms of peace were the cause of tho present unrest in Europe. After imposing those terms, America scuttled away and left the Allies to do the best they could. That was the country whose example they were asked to follow, rather than that nf "poor old Britain, dear drink-ridden old England was tho Mother ->f Nat : ons. •nd was th" country that ha given freedom and liberty" to the world. (Continued applause') That wa& the countrv tliev were asked to insult. Thov did not think, and he did not think, thev should insult her, but prayed that (rod would give them more countries like little old Entrl-md. (Applauee.) The world would be the better, for England stood as an example to whole world. (A voice: "What's the matter with Scotland, Mr Douigall" ?). Well, they knew that Scotland had been a very material factor in making the Englishman what he is. (Laughter.) He would not detain them longor, but would ask Mr Armstrong to address them.

A Sober Country. llr Armstrong was received with applause on rising to speak. He said that it gave him pleasure to meet again his fellow-'New Zealanders in Ghriatchurch, particularly when he found himself associated with such a representative body of citizens as were the members of the Canterbury executive of the Moderate League. On behalf of all the moderate people;of the Dominion, he expressed their thanks to Mr Dougnll. to Dr. Levinge, and the other gentlemen in Christchurch who had done so much to put the League in the strong position it held to-day. (Applause.) Answering the oueiy; "Do €s New Zealand need' Prohibition?" Mr Armstrong gave figures to show "that drunkenness in New Zealand since 1914 Had decreased approximately 40 per cent. By far the greatest decrea e had taken place belore six o'clock elo-ino-eanie into effect, so that measure had nothing whatever to do with the improved sobriety of the country. (An plause.) Illustrating his point with a cartoon of "Pussyfoot" and a not oS V? Ir Armstrong showed that the quantity of liquor consumed in N-w Zealand per head per day was one quarter of a pint of beer, one quarter iLi\ 0 Jt lna / y mp °/and less than half a teaspoonful of wine. Even allowing that Prohibitionists never drank at all— (laughter)— and that the Sultf Ivho f d \ d lnd . ul e° wre those adults who voted against Prohibition, the amount per head consumed by this

limited number was not only extreme- I ly temperate, but was hardly even <1 medicinal dose. All the outcry about tIM consumption of liquor, therefore, when the matter was reduced to its true and scientific basis, was so much "hot air." Instead of trying to makoi us appear a drunken country in order to scare innocent electors into voting for Prohibition, the Prohibition Party should be loyal to New Zealand and proclaim the truth. A Revolutionary Experiment. He wis proud, as a New Zealander. to point to the fact that the people of liiis country were the most sober in the world. (Applause.) As was shown by statistics, they were daily becoming ino-ie and more temp?rati". The inherent decency of New Zealnnders was ■working out the temperance problem along the natural lines of evolution. Let them beware how they interfered with this by risking a revolutionary experiment that might undo all the good that was being done and throw the country into a state of cKni It was obvious that what abuse existed, was particular and not general. That being the case, the remedy should bo particular and not gen ral. (Applause.) I/2t all reasonable steps be takpn to try and savo from themselves by regulation and control those individuals who, whether through physical weakness, lack of self-control, or gluttony, went beyond the bounds; but to suggest a prohibition of a whole community }>sc&u» of tho fault of a few was not within tho Iwunds of reason. There was no need for Prohibition in New Zealand. The proper course for electors to follow who wanted to seo something practical done to amend conditions was to vote for State control as irn indication to the Government that tho people demanded better liquor laws. The thirty years of agitation by the Prohibition Party had brought them nowhere. (Applause.)

Prime Minister's Promise.

It was because of a recognition of the truth of this matter and the urgent need for organisation to protect the rights of the moderate public that tho Moderate League had been formed in 1914. They had no connexion whatever with the "trade"—(Applause)— which they looked upon merely as purveyors to a public demand. It was the duty of the League to endeavour to get the best possible service to tho moderate public, to eliminate abuses connected with tho liquor traffic. The League, since it was formed in 1914, had not been idle In spite of what 1 was said to the contrary by their opponents, and had mado repeated representations to the Government rogarding amendment of the licensing law.

Their activities had resulted in a closer supervision of tho "trade,"and in this respect somo credit could be claimed for tho improved statistics of sobriety. In 1915 they had asked the Prime Minister to bring in an'entirely new Licensing Act; but he had replied that the united attention of tho country and Parliament was required for matters arising out of the war, and that therefore tho timo waa not opportune. As reasonable people, who viewed tho liquor question in just proportion to other matterß of State, they eould do nothing but agree with this attitude. Since the war had ended, however, they had approached the Government on several occasions, and now the Prime Minister had definitely promised that, if Prohibition were not carried at the approaching poll, reform of the licensing laws in the public interest would' bo one of the first duties of tho new Parliament. (Hoar, hear.) Here was a great opportunity for the moderate section to make themselves hoard —for all supporters of truo temperance to fall into lino to secure an effective licensing law by voting for the third issuo of State Control. It was a notorious fact that tho present mixture of restriction and ineffectiveness now posing on tho Statute Books as New Zealand's licensing law had been framed chiefly on compromises between the two extreme parties; tho Prohibitionists working for more restriction as opposed to roform, and the "trado" seeking every opportunity for extension of their trading rights. Tho moderate section must awake to tho danger of this method.

The League's Proposals. It was necessary that the people should know why the Moderate League was advocating stato control. The first reason was that they believed that the elimination of the element of private profit in the sale of liquor was the first step to temperance reform. The public interest would become tho first consideration. All liquors supplied and services rendered would carry a State guarantee. The present stand-up bar would be supplanted by a comfortable cafe system, and reconstruction would be carried out with a view to improved hygiene. Environment would be improved to the highest standard with consequent effect on the people patronising the various institutions, and freedom would be secured for experiments in the interests of temperance reform. Even under the existing law, State purchase would be a splendid financial proposition for New Zealand; but under the Moderate League's proposals it would be an absolute gift. Briefly, tho amendments proposed by the League were that if at any time the people carried State Control all licenses should lapqe one year from June 30th following the poll. That during that period the Government should have the, right to take over any part of the "trade" properties and interests, or none at all, as it saw fit, in accordance with its obligations to provide, a propei - service for the people. Payment would be made only for those properties taken over, and there wpuld be no liability or compensation for the properties left on the hands of tho trade.

The Prohibition Party were trying to frighten the electors off State control by saying that millions of money would have to be paid to purchase the "trade" interests. As a matter of fact no cash would bo required at all. Payment would be made by way of in-terest-bearing Government securities. The "trade" had committed itself to this principle in the petition it, circulated in 1918, so that the taking over by the State would be a paper transac tion only.

The adoption of State control would mean that the profits from the trade m alcoholic liquors now go in 2; into private hands would go into the public funds of the country, and would bo available, as had happened in other

State Control "in Britain. 1 * Yi aS T n ° Wlld or visionary tiling that the League was asking the electors to support State control had proved a success under the British fia K n B + r { taln , t ,e Government had taken over the whole of the "trad§» interests m the Carlisle and Gretna areas as a war measure The system had proved so successful that the British Government was still carrving it on The chief constable of Carlisle had -njittjn to the Moderate League in Ma,' of this year declaring himself "still perfectly satisfied with the conditions existing m Carlisle to-day" (.\ D plause.) The whole of the clergy* in Carlisle and district had eigned a memorial expressing their support and admiration of the system, stating "We hope that future legislation concerning the traffic in strong drink will follow the lines which have proved so beneficial in the Carlisle area."

By the last English mail letters had come to the League from numbers of clergymen m England, from leaders of industry and science, from such a noted thinker as Sir Oliver Lodge—(applause) all strongly in favour of State control as opposed to Prohibition,

and wishing the Lcague success in its endeavour to bring Zealand, the liquor question £ JS"elv Mr Armstrong quoted extent , from these letters, inclndin„ an Rev. Thomas , of the Lincoln district « 2 Methodist Church, in which ' "If I could change a" f T no " C ? u . . to the sort of tiling I sm ui ? Fl t' 8 Stated to not be ignored and must appeal thinking people. The System in Canada. At the, last election the Prohibition tss Quebec had tried Prohibition for two vears. To save the province from the frightful mess created the Government decided to institute the system ot •State control, which exists _ to-daj . Under the Quebec system light wines and beer are sold by the glass m cafes and with meals in restaurants aiul hotels; but spirits can only be ob taint 01 in sealed and guaranteed packages rom Government depots. The Prime Minister of Quebec had sent the Moderate League figures which showed tho people of the supposed "dry" province of Manitoba consumed on medical prescriptions times as much per capita as "wet Quebec under State control. (Applause.) In the Prohibition province of Manitoba the people consumed more I spirits per head that wc did in New [Zealand. Mr Armstrong quoted tho i opinions of the most 'prominent men in tho province to Quebec to show that the institution of control was, a real solution of tho liquor problem. These included the chiefs o£ police, tho medical directors of public hospitals, and Dr. Williams (Bishop of Quebec). These were statements of responsible men who had 110 interest "whatever in this question, apart from their desire to see that the best possible state of [ affairs was brought about for the good of their citizens.

The Issues Explained. As on the last occasion, three issues would be submitted to electors on Thursday next. Prohibition would bo carried if one more vote than 50 per cent, was recorded in its favour. The State Control vote would be joined to continuance as against Prohibition, and this was very propor, as State Control was a form of continuance, being continuance of the right of free choice for the individual. The Prohibitionists were making a great outcry and statins that the ballot paper _ was unfair to them. There was nothing unfair about it. If the Prohibitionists c ould convince one more than 50 per cent, of tho electors that they were right, then prohibition would be carried. It had nothing whatever to do with the prohibitionists if those who believed in tho liberty of the subject in this matter differed as to how things should be carried on in the future. Both those who believed in the present system and those who advocated State Control wore definitely against Prohibition. Of course it was well known that a large proportion of tho Prohibition vote in past years was mado up of those who did not believe in Prohibition, but could not support the existing system. Tho Prohibition party were now out to disfranchise the genuine temperanco voter by taking away the third issuo and forcing him to vote against liis convictions*. (Applause.) State Control could be carried on n 50 per cent, vote: but as both the Prohibition party and the trade were opposed to it, and as the law governing the issue needed amendment-, it did not appear likely that the third issue would be carried at this poll. The league, however, strongly urged the moderate electors to record their votes for State Control as a means of expressing to the Government their opinion that reform of the licensing law was immediately needed.

State Control Vote Not Wasted. He wished to mako it clear that tllo State Control votes were not in any circumstances "wasted votes," as stated by the Prohibitionists. Every vote for State Control counted definitely against Prohibition; but it also showed that the elector was not satisfied with existing conditions. (Applause.) Another important point was that if Prohibition were carried at the approaching poll, it would be final, and for all time. Section 64 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1918, made tbis qyite clear- It was regrettable to find that Prohibitionists were endeavouring to deceive the electors in this matter.

It was useless tor anyone to suggest that the right to vote could be got back through the Legislature. Our legislators were frightened enough now of the bogey of the Prohibition "block vote," and if Prohibition were once carried, we would have "Buckley's chance" of getting Parliament to resubmit the question to the people. The first people to black any attempt at resubmission would be the Prohibition party. In fact if they did not endeavour to block re-submission, they would be insincere in their endeavours to have it carried now. Revenue and Mr Hunt. Ir Prohibition were carried next week then all revenues and license lees from the importation, manufacture; and sale of alcoholic liquors would automatically cease on the thirtieth of June next. It wa3 useless for the Prohibition Party to try to disguise the importance of this matter. . The Prime Minister had stated that if Prohibition were carried he would have to call Parliament together at once to adjust the financial position. The amount involved was well over two million pounds per annum. The League had made an estimate based on the averapo yearly consumption for the ten years 1911 to 1920 worked out at the present rates of duty. This was the only reliable test of the amount derivable. Now this amount of over two million pounds would have to be made up by taxation in some other direction. The Taxation Commission had reported that no more could be raised from land tax and income tax; i'ariiament tliereiore would be compelled to place the taxation on the necessaries of life. 'lhe Prouibition Party were quoting Air W. i). liunt as an infallible authority. Mr Hunt was the gentleman who, as a member of the Eihciency Board, recommended the Government, in 1918, to prohibit the importation of luxuries such as silk stockings and in 1919, on behalf of the Prohibition Party, issued a statement that the lost liquor revenue would bo made up by taxation on the very luxuries he had previously recommended the Government to stop cr mitii; into the country. (Laughter.) Vi hicii Mr Hunt would they have? (A voice: "We don't want either.")

America Not Dry. Refering briefly to America, Mr Armstrong said tiie outstanding points were: —Inrst, America was not "ury" ; second, social conditions had not improved, and third that tests of popular opinion showed that the people were against Prohibition. (Applause.) This had been recognised by no less a person than President Harding, who, reiering to the Congressional elections had "taken cognisance of the Vet' gains" —and said: ''lf assured that the country was not merely undergoing a temporary reaction and really demands beer and wines he will endeavour to meet the demand." (Applause.) I',ven the Prohibition Party could not ques-t-ion the bona fides of that statement, coming as it did from the mnn they had been lauding as the champion of Prohibition enforcement. The Younger Generation.

The Prohibition Party, continued Mr Armstrong, was claiminii that tiie

younger people in the States were not now coining into contact with liquor. As a matter of fact they are coming nioro closely into contact with it, Decause brewing and distilling in the homes had become a national pastime, | y v ijeu coinparmg tlie activities ot the I anti-saloon leagues in America with | the work of the .Prohibitionists in New j Zealand, everyone should remember, continued the locturer, that thc saioona oi tue United States were not to be compared witn tue bars of iNew Zealand. The American saloons were nothing "but drinking dens, the haunts of vice, open all night long, and uncontrolled. The hotels in this country wore Sunday schools in comparison. \lr Armstrong caused a great deal of* amusement by reading American advertisements regarding the requirements of "how to make your own" and the recipes given and went on to show bv figures that the production of grapes and hops had increased greatly fn America since Prohibition was carro( Even the official organ ot the N Z Alliance —tlve -Vanguard had testified to the increased hop production. Well, what vras being done with the hops?

Drink in American Colleges. Ar. Arm<itronE said the "Vanguard," the o« M <* ***** Uliance had quoted replies to a questioimauo sent by an American temperance society to various collegea m the States 'lhe question apparently was whether Prohibition had increased drinkinc: among the -students Rather a remarkable question if Prohibition was as effective as is supporters claimed. The replies, however were moro remarkable., for they showed that wliilo 133 colleges, out of 4bb mteirocated recorded a decrease 111 could only bo reported as saying emphatically that there had been no increase," and 13 "cither reported or implied ail increase in the consumption of liquor since the paissnge of the amendment. Surely this was a wonderful thine to find in the official organ of the Prohibition party in New Zealand. (Inly a few days ago a cable message had appeared "in the Press reporting appalling scenes of drunkenness among students at the Naval and Military Colleges football match at Philadelphia. Fortunately, in this country, liquor wa3 absolutely unknown in any of our colleges and tho article in the. "Vanguard" would help us to understand ■why some Americans might need Prohibition. Wo did not want it in New Zealand. If Prohibition was a success in America, why was it necessary for the Prohibitionists to ask that question of tho colleges?

The Spirit of Prohibition. Mr Armstrong proceeded to paraphrase a number of Prohibition cartoons, and -said that the spirit behind the Prohibition movement (he was talking now of the typical Prohibition leader, not of thoso genuine voters who thought they were supporting temperance by voting Prohibition) was the Game old spirit of intolerance that in ages past had directed operations in the torture chamber. Tho Prohibition leaders had got cunning of lato years. They were not crying out against hoiwo racing, boxing, and dancing like they wero a few years ago. This was not becauso they had abandoned their attack on these things, but becauso they had determined to get them one at a time.

When wo came to trace the Prohibition movement to its source wo found that it had ita origin ill the activities of a number of types. There was, for instance, that peculiar typo of old age that, having exhausted itself in its own youth, looked with envy and malice upon thoso who wero still enjoying tho good tilings of life. This type was aptly summed tip in a verso he had read recently:— "King Solomon and King David led merry, merry lives, With many, many servitors, and many,

many wives; But when old age grew o'er them, with many, many qualms, King Solomon wrote the proverbs and David wrote the psalms/' (Laughter.)

Uien there was the Churchman type, that thought it saw in the Prohibition movement a means of gaining political power. The desire to control the lives of others ivaa inherent in a large proportion of humanity. The training of ministers of religion rendered them peculiarly liable to be infected with this microbe. History bad shown the entry of religion into politics to be a very dangerous thing for the State. It was regrettable to have to record the tact; but it would appear that 'large numbers of the ministers of religion in this country _ were abandoning the Christian principle of moral ' sliaSiori and turning, instead to the legislature and coercion.

The Efficiency Argument. Then there was tho industrial type which had as its slogan the magic word '"Efficiency." "The peopie of America had never had a vote on the question of national Prohibition. It had be6n "put acroes" by the legislatures largely at the instigation of industrial magnates who thought that they would bo able to equeeze a little more work out of their enjployees. One judge, E, H. Gary, freely quoted by the New Zealand Alii..nee as being in favour of Prohibition, was shown to be also in favour of the "twelve-hour working day and seven-day working week." Mr Henry Ford had issued an ■ ecfict which was given in the ''Literary Digest" as follows:—"From now on it will cost a man his job, without any excuse or appeal being; considered, to have the odour of beer, wine or liquor on his breath, or to have any of these intoxicants on his person or in his home." Tiiis indicated the sort of tyranny that could be created under Prohibition. Henry Ford's control of his workers, body and soul, did not begin and end at the factory gate, J>tit entered their very homes. America, in its hysteria and hypocrisy, was tho laughing stock of the world.

The Choice on December 7th. - Mr Armstrong concluded by stating tiiat this was not merely a question of trade.or no trade, hotels or no hotels. There was a great principle involved. New Zealanders had to choose whether they would follow the blundering experiment of hysterical America, or the lead of good solid olci Great Britain, our own Mother Country—(applause) — tlmfc had trained her sons generation after not to run awef from difficulties and dangers, but to face them and overcome them. The people should show the Gove.nmfnt they wait I>ettcr conditions by voting for State Control. (Loud applause.)

Question Time. Some amusement was caused by a questioner, in the front row of the stalls, who asked a question dealing with general pontics which had no relevancy to the liquor question. Replying to other questions, Mr Armstrong said that he was not aware that any candidates had expressed their willingness to amend the licensing law on t.M lines desired by the Leacue, but the League was quite confident that the law wou.d be altered from the point of view of the public interests. To allother questioner ho explained the difference between the League's estimate of the revenue which would have to be made up if Prohibition were carried, and the figures relating to tile same matter recently issued by the Controller of Customs. Apart from the lc6s of revenue, they had to talre into consideration what the cost of the enforcement °f Prohibition would be. On the chairman's motion, and by acclamation, Mr Armstrong was accorded a vote of thanks for his ad(fre?s. A vote of thanks to the chairman concluded a successful meeting.

Published by Arrangement.]