LIQUOR QUESTION

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18526, 30 October 1925, Page 13

LIQUOR QUESTION

j CASE FOR PROHIBITION I _

j CORPORATE CONTROL

CONDEMNED,

The reply of tho Prohibition Party to the advocates of corporate control was givou last evening 3t. the Caledonian Hall, when an audic-Dce wlfSch filled tho building in all parts heard addresses on the liquor question by Mr Li- M. Isitt. M.P.. and tfco Rev. J. !•. Coursey. Mr W. G. Jamieson occupied the cjaairj and there Ver<\ many prominent, citizens and several members ot thu • Anglican clergy on the platform. Tho chairman quoted tho opinion of Archbishop Julius, who had uttered a strong condemnation or corporate control, end' said that tho speakers following would, make reference to all tho points touched' upon by Messrs Perry and Armstrong, who had stated. the case for the third issue on tho ballot paper. Licensing Reform Association. Mr Isitfc received a very cefdial welcome, with, a-countervail' or two ■vrlaiob. he cleverly carried. He opened, with an assurance) that thc- # Party h© had fought with so long would ,r get .to Tipperary." Tho aliases of the Moderate 'League were rehearsed, and Mr Isitt proceeded to grapplo with the. corporate control proposals as eeti forth, on Tuesday last- In all the feappearrjnees of the Moderate League, ho jaid, Mr Armstrong was a ntaady starter. Mr Armstrong tun ojrf->tho Vicar, of' Bray—and Bfay aiid Beer went together. formerly no °l°rgY br-d associated with him. lie now! appeared 'as a .philanthropist. There wa3 nothing dirtier than tho liquor trade. •••A Voice: What about politics? ■ ■ • Mr Isitt: If you %ut out the drink you will .elevate politics immeasurably. There was no greater fraud in connexion' with tho. battle against intemperancqjthan this Moderate League. He could not. underotond anybody who liad any braina at all being taken in by it. It was not a genuine temperance movement. / If was the most' transparent confidence trick that could possibly be imagined. Ent who was finding the money y The meeting in Christehurch must have cost, if not more, close oil £'2oo. Who pair! that? These people did not take tip a col lection. Who care that money? The clerics? The clerics from -their stipends found £200! "You.fcnow as well as I do," he said; "that the 'whole-of that money -was found bj the Trade."

TiteFinaaeial Backing. • Mr Isitt related'questions-he bad asked when on tho Licensing Committee of the House with regard to the ftuding of tbe money for the broadcasting of the advertisements relating to'corporate control. The . fact that tho liquor trade-was finding the whole 'of'the iaotsey was. proof that corporate control was not. a genuine, reform. In. the long; advertised,report published on Wednesday, there-fra? not'sis inches that 'explained tho claims of corporate control. Mr C. .P. Skerretl, K.C., ■: had appeared on. the scene, a mail who stood at the very head of the logal profession, , and had associated himself with the matter. A letter had been broadcasted to elnb members throughout New Zealand, advising that the recipients should vote for the middle issue. It stated that they need have no hesitation in doing this, because it could not Tjossibly be carried. •If a large number of people voted for the middle issue,_ it was stated, the vote Would haV<\ its significance, and Mr Coatee in liis licensing legislation would he more likely to make the provision that the club-men" wanted. That 'was what the. corporate control ;issue rrioant. It was . known that the issue was one that could not'Lo carried.

1 Weak and Illogical.; i Mr Perry, said Mr Isitfc. - was to be pitied. He -made a most weak ami illogical speech. Mr Perry taunted the prohibitionists with the fact .'that they had done nothing for the reform of tho liquor traffic. Ignorance was hatd .to forgive, and ho supposed they wbuld have to Mr Perry, but; it was time that lie. died. Every licensing reform .that-had been placed uprin the Statute Book had been fought through by the Prohibitionists., The biggost opponent they bad with regard to six o'clock closing was ; Mr Armstrong. It had been said that prohibition would make the drinking of a glass of beer a. crime. Prohibition* did not deal with the act of the individual in drinking liquor; it, dealt with the salo. of liquor. It was time that they stopped the traffic altogether. Mr Parry had given- an exposition of the law that he 'would "not dare to give, before a Bench of Judges. If prohibition was carried and put upon tho Statute Book, it would be the first lawput there in the -manner which Mr Perry himself advocated; thai is to say, by a referendum of "the people. If if. could be shown that the liquor traffic did not submit others to peril through a drunken engine-driver, -a. drunken captain, or a drunken motor-driver; if. it could bo shown that it did not. make the lives of women and children an absolute he'd on earth; if it could be shown that- it did not. create inefficiency. then he would admit; t.h'at lie had to ask people to vote for prohibition : . hut tbo" man , who never crossed the "door of a. twr vvai; .affected, and he had therefore the right to ask whether this thing was a great blessing or.a great curse. It was-his lifelong. conriciion thai, it was. no end of a curse, and bo believed tho nation was seeing the point.

Anglican Clergy Favour Prohibition. The Rev. J. F. Conrsey said he stood thero' representing himseli, ho stood tnere also as : a clergyman of the Anglican Church because tue namo of the Church had dragged m tho mud throughout New Zeaiand. Uo would- out tho true facts concerning the stand tho Anglican Church took in the matter: In the General Srnod. passed the following rosolutiou: "i'hafc tW 6ynod expresses its-strong conviction that it is the bounden duty of Christian people, unless they _ are prepared to vote for the total Prombition of the.liquor.traffic, to have some other drastic remedy for an evil which is sapping th© morals and efficiency of the, community.". . On Tuesday - night Archdeacon lajlor said that.there was a supposition that liquor was- an evil thing. Archdeacon. Taylor bad voted lor the resolution passed by the Svnod. -The : leader of the Synod, Archbishop Julius, proposed the. resolution, , and the stirfg was in the tail , of "his speech, when ho said that there was no other remedy. But fools rushed in where angels feared to'tread, and where the Archbishop feared to' step three clergymen ana ooe-l&Tinaii rushed iu. General Synod issued* the cballengo to clergv to provide a' remedy, and these* three _said the;, had .'provided- the remedy, They

had hatchod a scheme. which he believed was an addled egg. Five of Iho sis dioceses of the Church in New Zealand bad passed a motion in favour of Prohibition. Before this could be.done there bad to be a majority of the clergy and the laity, so lie claimed ho representedthe majority of the Church in New Zealand. He preferred their company in that, of three brewer.*. two hotelkcepcrs, and one \v inr and :-pirif merchant.. Archdeacou Taylor had ;-iid bo o H not. wind their company to long as they helped hira to bring about, reform.". It' was tho speaker's oniniou that- t.be trade had a double-headed ywany. "Heads I win. tails you lose." The third issue was simply another liquor dodge. and their was no concealment <if that. If Statu control was carried he and other citizens would lv> made shareholders in the trade which they considered damnable. U.SJL Bem&ining Dry. 11l a o.ucstionnairo to leading American Churchmen, the overwhelming voice was for Prohibition. The Bishop of California had said: "Church pec-plo formerly opposed to Prohibition now approve of it, including the Bishop j himself.'" The report of the LainIjctii Conference stated : "Representatives from the United States offer ample evidence that the policy of Prohibition has already resulted in a marked c.'c-crea.se in the population of penal and cliaritablo institutions and in the number or cases coming before tho"'police, aud'also 'iin the demand? upon rescue work There is also ax> improvement iu economic and industrial conditions, and above all, in the stability of the home, in tho integrity of the : family, and in the welfare of ■tho • children." There had been two elections since the 18th Amendmentfor Conpcss, and ;it every election the .number of. dry members. in Congress had increased. A dry President, had !>een elected every and 7o per cent, of the members of Congress were dry men. One of the greatest, stumbling blocks in tie paths of their weaker brethren was strong drink. Christians mu?t. fight it with their bare hands and produce in this country the only liberty which was worth while. Corporate Coqt.rol simply entrenched liquor and delayed tho liberation of the land from the great enemy of social and religious progress. Professor Condliffe. ; Professor, J. 8., Condliffe said that-, speaking from tho economic point of view, there was no doubt in Ins mind that the best advice to give electors was to vote for Prohibition. No economist could escape the conclusion that the total abolition of the sale of alcoholic liquors would increase the wealth of the community. The most important form of capital in any community was tbo human capital, and there could bo no doubt that the trade in alcoholic liquor detracted from human efficiency ir far gTeater measure than any benefits which it conferred. This in itself was not a sufficient reason for Prohibition, bnt it reinforced the argument from the social and humanitarian viewpoint with a solid economic, benefit to be expected from increased human efficiency. It was constantly ..being suggested that Prohibition would not prohibit, and that .the experience of ,the United States had shown that the benefits to be hoped from the complete sweeping away "of a harmful industry_,did not materialise. He, had that morning received a copy .of a. speech by Dr. Stephen Leacock, a Canadian economist. In, his opinion—and ho had read many of .Professor Leacock's books, both economic 'arid literary—he was a very good funny-writer but a- poor economist. The speaker, had recently-met at Honolulu' a representative -selection of economic authorities, many of them men of international, reputation, not only among .their professional colleagues, but "also in, the opinipn of the general public. Some of. them had been opposed to the Prohibition law, and ,at least one was still opposed! to it. But all were unanimous that over a considerable section of the- United States the law was'completely effective, and that there was no possibility'of-the law being repealed. From the point of view of business men. there was no doubfc of the beneficial - effect of the change. \ The-Prohlem of Enforcement. • There was admittedly a problem of enforcement in, certain ..areas;. but it must- be remembered that Americans spoke a rather different language from ours.. When they spoko of a- campaign they meant the kind of thing that the _y.-M.CiA. runs in this country when it gets short of funds. There was % lawlessness and a difficulty in J securing tho respect for law which we ; take .for granted in a British community; but this was part of the price that tho United States was paying for 'the wholesale immigration of dhcap labour in recent. years, and had nothing specifically to do with Prohibition. The defying of the Prohibition law by certain sections of the community in certain of the big towns of the United States was merely symptomatic of tho general disrespect fcfr law- in a, community that had not become assimilated to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of liberty within the law. To say that the same kind of result might be expected in New Zealand was .uq insult to the law-abiding, homogeneous British population, of the Dominion and to tho tradition in which tho colonisation of New Zealand had been carried out. If a majority of the peoplo of New Zealand voted for Prohibition he had enough faith in the loyalty of his fellow-citizens to be-1 lieve- that even those who were op- ! posed to. tho law would observe it and support its observance. Fantastic Proposals. Professor Condliffe said that he had risen to move what- amounted to a motion of no-confidence iu tho scheme that had been proposed for corporate control of the. liquor industry. 1t was one of tho most fantasic financial proposals that he "had ever co.mo across. He would not sky that there were no financial experts ahtong the people who produced the scheme, but he aid not think they were to be found among the three clergy and c-ne layman of whom they had heard so much that night. Ho- believed that it war, possible to grft quotations on the Stock Exchange, which showed brewery shares at several shillings. above their cunrent price -if Prohibition wcro not carried next Wednesday. He ventured to • prophesy ? very much larger rise in tho value of shares if corporate control were by' any chance, to bo carried. Thero were" also strong objections to the proposed corporate control on general .grounds of government-, and the present, scheme, if for no other reason' i than that it linked "a State guarantee and State participation with a. continued dependence upon profit-making and therefore' upon maximum sales, was a -political monstrosity. But it was/difficult, to believe thai so crude a'proposal was seriously put forward as. a genuine reform. He therefore moved: "That in the opinion of this meeting Corporate . Control offers no solution of the admitted evils of tho liquor traffic, nr.d,.that, the only effecire solution is National Prohibition.'' Dr. O'Brten. The mot ion. was seconded by Dr. A. B. O'Brien, who" spoke in a threefold capacity: as a New Zealandcr born and • bred .-who. was also tho father of six healthy New Zealand children, as a -member of the. Roman - Catholic Church, in which tho movement against tbe liquor traffic had fifii arisen, and as a .medical. man. The motion, was put to tbe meeting and carried with a few dissentients. Enthusiastic cheers were given for Prohibition. -'(Extended ' Report published =by ■ arrangement.)