LICENSING ISSUE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19459, 5 November 1928, Page 15

LICENSING ISSUE.

A PLEA FOR TOLERANCE. « CORPORATE CONTROL » ADVOCATED. Appealing to the community for a tolerant view of the licensing question as, it claims, is contained in the suggested "corporate control" issue, the New Zealand Licensing Reform Association held a public meeting in the Caledonian Hall last evening, when the Rev. E. E. Maiden presided over an attendance of about a hundred. The speakers were Mr W. Perry and Mr E. A. Armstrong (Dominion secretary of the Association), who were given an attentive hearing. Indeed, for a subject as contentious as this, the proceedings were strangely tranquil and there were very few interjections. The chairman did not speak, contenting himself with introducing the speakers. Origin of the Association. Mr Perry, after extending "a polite invitation to those who were not their friends to make themselves heard at any time," stated that the meeting had been called under the auspices of tho New Zealand Licensing Eeform Association, an organisation which had been formed in 1923. Its originators had been four members of the Auckland diocese—three clergy and one layman. These gentlemen, believing that Prohibition was not tho solution or remedy for such intemperance as there was in New Zealand (and there was comparatively little), devised the system of corporate control, which they believed w. s the true solution of this problem. At a conference held in 1923, attended by representatives of the clergy, the Moderate League, the Licensed Trade, and chartered clubs, the License Eeform Association was formed, with branches in all parts of New Zealand, advocating corporate control. As the name implied, the object was better conditions as far as the laws of New Zealand were concerned. In 1923 and in 1924 deputations waited on Mr Massey, and in 1925 there was a further deputation to Mr Coates, urging upon him as on Mr Massey the substitution of the corporate control issue instead of the State control issue, and that in tho meantime various reforms should be brought about in the existing system. During the last I session the Licensing Reform Association pressed in the House the amendment that the issue of corporate control should be substituted. That amendment was lost and was opposed, as all movements for reform were opposed, by every Prohibitionist in the House, who ; did not lift one finger in the direction of assisting any move for reform in the licensing issue. A Board of Nine. The Licensing Eeform Association, said Mr Perry, did not propose to let i the matter rest there. It intended to continue its propaganda for reform and improvement in the present licensing system. Corporate control meant that the trade would be taken over by a corporation. The purchase money would be paid by the allotment of shares, 20 per cent, to be allotted to the Government without the payment of any cash. These shares would subsequently be paid for out of profits, as and when earned. The Corporation would be governed by a Board of nine—five Government nominees and four in the interests, of the trade. A voice: What about the people? Mr Perry: They would be represented by the nominees appointed by the Government. You would have Government Control plus business management. The Corporation, continued Mr Perry, would become the landlord of all the hotels of New Zealand. It would be the sole body concerned with the importa- ; tiows and sale of liquor. It would also be the sole licensing authority and exercise the strictest control over the' licenses. There would be no after-hours trading, inferior liquor, or the permitting of drunkenness. The trade would be under such strict supervision that not even the most ardent prohibitionist would have cause fdr complaint. The profits would be limited to 10 per cent., which would go to public purposes. The Licensing Reform Association stood between the Prohibition Party on the one hand and the Liquor Trade on the other. It represented a large and growing body of public opinion in New Zealand. It was against the principle of Prohibition, because it was absolutely convinced that that principle was based on a false foundation. If~Prohibition Comes. "If Prohibition is carried," said Mr Perry, "it will become the duty of tSte State to enforce the it can. The law will be a penal law and breaches will be visited by fines and possible imprisonment. An innocent act such as drinking a glass of beer will become a srime and result in a fine or impri*oßn>»ut. The laws of the State must be fair and just, and have behind them the support of the vast majority of the people before there is any real chance of their being enforced. No legislation could convert an innocent act into a crime,' he added. If we looked at all onr laws we would find that the origin or source of all law was to be found in religion or custom. Rules of conduct became laws, and they became laws because they had behind them justice and right, and fairness, and for that reason they had the organised force of the State to enforce them. The Prohibition law could not have the organised force of the State behind it, and if it had it could not be enforced on the people because it was based on false promises, and was not fair or equitable. A Prohibition law based upon such false premises must inevitably fail in this, as in any other country. He spoke of the misery that the Prohibition law had brought in its train in America, and somebody interjected, "What rot!" A Comparison. The speaker compared the Prohibition law with other laws such as murder and theft, which were clearly wrongful acts. Therein lay the fundamental differences. On exactly the same basis, because one man or a number of men abused their privileges in driving motorcars, the Prohibitionists argued thaUir people should be prohibited from using motor-cars. A man in the front tow laughed. We had in New Zealand itself an example of the impossibility of enforcing a law of this description. He referred to the anti-shouting measure during the war, saying that after some observance of this, people asked themselves what it was doing to win the war, and where the fairness of it came in, till the regulation was evaded by all kinds of subterfuge, and became an utter farce, and was ultimately repealed. It failed because Parliament tried to decide by legislation that an act of hospitality was a crime. Every individual had his individual rights, which were safeguarded by the law ever since it had been put on a proper footing. It had been the undeniable right of every man to partake of intoxv eating liquor, and those rights could not be taken away by legislation. "Prohibition Does Not Prohibit."

Whatever people in America might have thought when they passed Prohibi-

tion, the one cold, hard, and indisputable fact emerged—that after eight and a half years of attempted Prohibition in America, Prohibition did not prohibit. That was the one clear outstanding fact. It did not prohibit. An interjector: That applies to all laws, doesn't it? l "Yes, of course; but in other laws it is a matter of right and wrong. I am > forbidden to steal because stealing is wrong, but I'm not going to be prohibited from drinking, because drinking one glass of beei is not wrong. (Hear, hear, and applause.) » "In eight and a half years," the i speaker continued, "Uncle Samuel has been unable to enforce Prohibition, and with such a nice long coastline as New Zealand has, I can't see New Zealand enforcing Prohibition. I cannot imagine that there will be very much difficulty in running liquor from Australia to New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) There will be plenty of ships coming to New Zealand, and I don't think they will | seal all their supplies down." The Middle Issue. In conclusion, said Mr Perry, at the last election there had been a greatly increased vote for the middle issue, and he appealed for continued support. So loig as the middle issue vote continued i to increase, so long would the licensed ' trade recognise that it must keep its house in order, otherwise the vote might go against it. "Not Warranted." Mr Armstrong said that Prohibition was not warranted by the conditions existing in this country. New Zealand was probably the most temperate country in the world. At first glance the quantity of liquor consumed annually '. seemed*phenomenal; but the true test was to work it out at per head of the population, when it would be found that the. daily consumption was: Beer, onefifth of a pint; spirits, one-ninth of an ordinary nip; wine, about half a thimbleful. Even allowing for the large number of children and adults, who did not drink, the simplest calculation showed that .he consumption of liquor in New Zealand hardly amounted to a medicinal dosage. It was obvious that the abuses that j existed were not general, but particular, j The remedy, therefore, lay, not in Pro- j hibition, but in such wise measures of control as would tend to correct the fault of the individual, without imposing unnecessary restrictions upon the large body of decent citizens who used without abusing. For the past fourteen years New Zealand had shown a wonderful record of progressive sobriety. In 1914 the convictions for drunkenness were 13,480, equal to 12.06 per thousand of population. Year by year this figure had reduced until for 1927 the convictions had receded to 6417, or equal to 4.5 per thousand of population. This was the result of the inherent decency and intelligence of the people of New ZeaIrjd. The drunkard was rapidly becoming as extinct as the inoa. New Zealanders were a sober people, and did not require Prohibition. The United States. Over-indulgence in liquor had been a I social sore in the United States to an extent that could not be imagined by the people of New Zealand. In the U.S.A. the Prohibitionists bad been successful in exploiting the war-time spirit of sacrifice. Now, in the ninth year of Prohibition, what had America to show for it? Travellers from New Zealfind to the United States, except those who deliberately refused to see or hear, came back with the same'story. Prohibition in the United States was a farce. Drinking and drunkenness were worse than ever; the most tragic feature being the corruption of the young. The speaker produced a great bundle of original letters, which he passed to the Press representatives, from the chiefs of police of some hundreds of American cities, proving that, whereas, prior to Prohibition, there had been a tendency to less and less drunkenness, similar to the temperance trend in New Zealand and Great Britain, immediately Prohibition came into force drunkenness commenced to increase again and had in 1927 reached a higher level than ever before. Figures for Drunkenness. He quoted from the original publications of the Anti-Saloon League, showing that, for over three of the principal U.S.A. cities, the figures for drunkenness in 1914 were 18.9 per thousand of population. In' 1919, the last year before Prohibition, the figure had reduced to 9.8. iln the first year of Prohibition the figure was 7.1; but it rose to 9.3 in the second year; to 12.3 I in the third year; and to 14.1 in the fifth year (1924), which was the last shown in the Anti-Saloon League publication. That Prohibition organisation evidently thought it had gone_ far enough in enlightening the public on the failure of Prohibition. The figures for later years, however, hnd been obtained direct from the U.S.A. police, and showed that a fair approximate estimate of the drunkenness figures for 1927 would be something over twenty per thousand. When that' figure was compared with New Zealand's 4$ per thousand '"t would be seen that America under Prohibition had over four times as much drunkenness as under New Zealand license. Opinion of American Clergy. A most .important publication had. just come to hand from the United , States. It was a book entitled "Pro-1 hibition as we see it—Opinions express- j ed by Clergymen in a Nation-wide poll j of the Episcopal Church in the United j States" (Published by the Board of j Directors of the Church Temperance Society). A "questionnaire had been sent to 5301 members of the clergy, and | 2980 replies had been received. These j showed that there was a vote of nearly j three to one that Prohibition was not i a success, and also that Prohibition did not offer the best solution for the probr j lem of intemperance. He quoted in-1 dividual extracts from the replies of the clergy showing that drinking among young* people had become most alarming. A majority of the clergy who had replied expressed the opinion that Prohibition should be abandoned and a system of State Control adopted similar to that of Canada. State Control In Canada. "A few years ago," said Mr Armstrong, "the Prohibitionists were proclaiming 'that Canada was bone dry from East to West. We do not hear them talking about Canada now." The reason was that, after giving Prohibition a thorough trial, Canada had abandoned it and instituted State Control, j Prosperity. ' "There is only one true measure of „r n .meritv " said Mr Armstrong, "and fh7isTh'e happiness and contentment of our people." It could not be mea-, sured in terms of dollars or pounds sterling. In that respect New Zealand was the most prosperous country in the world; but, even if we debased the measure to what appeared to be the American standard (unfortunately preached by some people in this country) we would find that, in terms of dollars, New Zealand in Us small way compared more thar. favourably with the U.S.A. The "World Almai. ;" showed American Savings Bank deposits to have increased by seventy-eight per cent, from 1916 to 1925; but the New Zealand Official Year Book showed our own deposits to have increased, in the

same period, by one hundred and four per cent. The "World Almanac" also showed'that business failures in the TJ S A. in 1926 were three times greater, I in' proportion to established concerts, I I than they were before Prohibition. The "' recorded embezzlement and fraud in- : I surance losses in the U.S.A., which in 1 ! 1917 were under two million dollars, naa 1 ' grown in 1926 to over fourteen - million E ! dollars. That did not indicate pros- " perity. The reason would probably be b found in the condition descnbed_by 1 1 Professor Irving Fisher, of Yale Um--5 versity, the accepted economist of the 'Anti-Saloon League, and a b ' ist. In an article in the "New York Morn--1 ing Telegraph" Professor Fisher disr I puted that there was real prosperity m " I the TJS.A. In the course of his article f , he had said that the class of peoplej*" J eluding "not only manual _and office • workers, but the small business men, • manv managers, and most engineers as • well," received only about 38.6 per cent 1 of the national income—"less than 460 r dollars per person." Professor Fisher J had fnrtl.er pointed out that ninetythree millions of the combined poorest and lower middle-classes in the U.B.A. ■ had practically nothing left over after • purchasing the barest essentials to ' "provide for all omitted items above • thp minimum of health and decency be--1 low which a family man cannot go ■ without danger of physical and moral ■ deterioration." Unemployment. The speaker quoted Mr Edgar Wal- ' lace, Legislative Representative of the American Federation of Labour, as having stated tLat 40 per cent, of the poton- , tial labour power of the TJ.S.A. was now 1 idle, whereas 20 per cent, was the i normal figure* Our own Prime Minister 1 had recently quoted figures to show the ■ wonderful position New Zealand occui pied among the countries of the world ' in relation to unemployment. Mr Coates's statement was as follows: — , "The returns showed that in the United ■ States at the end of 1327 the unpmploy- : .ed ratio was one in 18. In Great ■ Britain at March of this year the » ratio was one in 38. In Queens'and it ■ was one in 63; in New South Wales one. ' in 167, and for the, whole of the Com- • monwealth it was one in 190. For New ) Zealand the figures were one in 375."

I Menace of Intoleranca. ' "While we moat give credit for »ige cerity," said the speaker, "to those, who vote Prohibition in the mistaken belief that they «e, doing , to help temperance, we most not' J0» sight of the fact that stalking behind thi organised Prohibition, movement there is the sinister menace « intolerance." The spirit of intolerance, like ! jealousy, and greed, and lust, hadbeen with humanity throughout the ages, in - 'every civilisation it had, manifested «• ! self as a potent cause of disruption and nnhappineßS. New Zealand was a young 'country and should stomp ««t intolerance wherever it showed its head. TWrs was no need to point odt to a Christchurch andience the number of social pleasures that bad been made the subject of attack. Horse-racing, eard-playtog, dancing—all had enemies ready to organise for their abolition. If Prohibition were carried, what would be next. Anti-tobacco societies were' being formed throughout the world.' Men lifce Henry Ford, beloved of the Prohibitionists, greedy for wealth and power, were attempting to shackle'the'masses in,an industrial* slavery. Ford had recently prophesied a "boundaryless United States of the World," in which there , would be universal Prohibition of liquor and tobacco. He had said "Uo one, smokes in the Ford industries." A few vears ago he had merely said, "No one drinks in the Ford industries." To that type it was but a step—prohibition of liquor in the Ford industries to-day, prohibition of liquor for the whole community to-morrow—prohibi-tion of tobacco in the Fowl industries- to-day, prohibition of tcV bacco for the whole community to-morrow. The spirit of' intolerance was a real menace. It appeared in many guises. It insinuated itself into many otherwise worthy movements. It should be nipped in the bud wherever it appeared. The speaker concluded by-appealing to his hearers to maintain their personal liberty and at the same time /assist those who were moving for real temperance reform by voting for the middle issue of State Purchase and Control. Mr G. li. Donaldson moved vote of. thanks to the/speaker, which was carried by acclamation.,. ' ' [Extended Beport published by " j' Arrangement.]