PROHIBITION.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18668, 17 April 1926, Page 16

PROHIBITION.

TO THE. EDITOR OP "THE PEESB." Sir,—ln your t editorial comment on my letter concerning the alleged referendum conducted by newspapers, you say: "It would.have been much, more to the point if Mr Murray had explained why supporters of Prohibition were "advised not to participate in this referendum.'" Perhaps you will kihdly permit me noV.to give some of the reasons. The executive of" the Anti-Saloon League gives the following reasons:— , , ;, Y Friends of Prohibition, should not participate in these unofficial polls, which make possession of a' coupon 'cut from 'some newspaper . the. sole qualification 'for voting. The opportunity foir repeated voting by any individual ' of any age, the lack of responsibility, the frequently'ambiguous character of the question, and the limited number of those participating in any voting precinct make snch tests of public opinion not only valueless, but, subversive to the .truth,.' ' The irreconcilable or thirsty'minority ■is . always more< active in casting such ballots than the majority, which has settled the issue find has turned to' constructive work. Repeatedly after the most careful straw votes, an official election on the same issue reverses the result ,of the • straw votes. This was the -case in Massachusetts, following the publication of the poll, by .the ""Literary Digest.' 3 ' In confirming this I may i mention that on March Bth General Lincoln C. Andrews, who is i,n charge of Federal "dry" Ikw enforcement, was asked his opinion, about, this poll, and his reported rep.lywas as follows: —: "The 'wet' readers register their desire for a change in such a ballot. The 'drys'.are satisfied with things as they are-. They do not vote." • The New York."Times" of February 14th this, year, stated: "The year 1925 will undoubtedly down in' Prohibition history as the year of "the great talk. It. is very' unlikely indeed, that any change in the .Prohibition .law will be made by the present .Congress, except in the direction'of more efficient enforcement."

With regard to our l own licensing legislation, I note-that you do not consider that Mr Coates is in any way bound to accept the advice of a committee set up by Mr Massey. This is evidently not the view of the .liquor interests, since Mr Percy Coyle, president of the Licensed Victuallers.' Association, has specifically stated that ""rethought ..the Government during the coming Parliament would introduce legislation' on the basis of. the 1924 Parliamentary Committee's recommendations, which included provision for a longer tenure." Differences of opinion are likely to arise'as to what may or may not be regarded as "drastic changes." .So - far as the. Alliance is concerned, in view of the state of publie opinion "as expressed rn the vote, it does not consider -that there is.any justification for. changes'that will -either further facilitate the sale and consumption of intoxicating drinks or grant to the licensed liquor. traffic any further privilege rMAL B TON C MURRAT, , Executive Secretary New Zealand Alliance.

T0 THE EDITOR Or "THE PRESS."

Sir,—Hard pressed by the proofs I gave from the votes cast at the last licensing poll, that your alleged ."strong national desire # for drastic reforms" exists nowhere but in jom own imagination, you try k> find a way of escape by restoring to a desperate expedient. It is N the # expedient of claiming that very considerable numbers of the 310,450 who> A'oted for Prohibition, and. the 299,584 who voted for Continuance didn t know their own minds, -but voted for something entirelv different from that which they teally desired. They desired "reform ;" -so you : tell us, ana they had no chance.to express that desire' by voting for State Control. Instead of that they voted either for Continuance or Prohibition,: neither of which as |they well knew included -Preform" on its programme Will vou allow me to say that I have a better opinion of the average intelligence and sanity of New Zealand voters than to. believe that in any number worth speaking of.they would at the ballot-box mak» a display of mental, topsy-turveyness worthy of Sunnyside. That people vote for Prohibitkm for various reasons is most true, but if "reform" only be aimed at and not the extinction ot "the trade" it is clear that they vote in the wrong box. It is not true, as you allege, that Prohibitionists are opposed to any real reform of , '"the trade." Any extent to which the trade has already been reformed in the way. of shortened hours of sale and other methods of curtailing its baleful influence, is due more to Prohibitionists than to anybody' else.' who Have ■ fought hard to'secure such improve--1 ments in the teeth of,. opposition offered by those who are'now-shout-

in'g most loudly for a drastic "reform." It is because th 6 "reforms" now contended for hold' out no prospect of abating by a single atom the evils, that now exist in connexion with the liquor trade that we strongly deprecate the attempt made to magnify most unduly, and unfairly- the extent to which' they receive the endorsement of the people of New Zealand.—Tours etc.. W. J. WILLIAMS. April 16th, 1926.