THE NATIONAL LEAGUE AND NOLICENSE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1097, 8 April 1911, Page 10

THE NATIONAL LEAGUE AND NOLICENSE.

Sir, —The objects of the "- National League should meet with the sympathy of.'all -thoughtful "men. It. is quite time that moderato and reasonable men should try to prevent the-imposition of unreasonable restrictions oh the people of the coiumunity- by hasty or ul-co.n-sidered legislation. -The lungU'b is-'out, AsnJirwAto. cMi Jisflßtll s«ya/< tynftdfelf" "the-right thief." Mr. licll'also states tliat tlio league rs not' formed to help tho Liquor patty; If the league is sin-cC'i-6,: in :its objects it liuisfc-necessarily help to demolish-licensed houses as they, now exist. Any ' legislation which creates monopolies or gives special benoiits to a tavoured few must be contrary to tlio well-being of, and an unreasonable restriction oil, other members of the community. What would tlio community say if tlio right to'sell bread, tea, Hour, meat, or any other, article of food or drink or of clothing were.'given 'to- si - favoured fe'w? ■•■"Why should-..-alcoholic drink be treated-'in '-'a different: manner' to: that of other drink or of food or clothins? If it is necessary for the good of tile community that alcoholic liquor should be obtainable in small quantities, then why should the right to supply such need be. given to a favoured few, and not to anyone willing to, pay the license fee (if any license fee is payable)? Owing, however, to the peculiar properties of alcoholic liquors, it has always been deemed advisable to put some restriction upon their sale. Instead, however, of placing restrictions upon their salo, special facilities for selling such liquors have been given to a favoured few, who arc licensed to the exclusion of other members of tile community. It is obvious that 110 restriction upon tlio sale of alcoholic liquor is imposed, but only a monopoly created. The few persons who are granted licenses arc not even subjected to any restriction as to the quality of the liqi or they sell or the price they can charge. They are not even subject to election by the other members of the community. Seeing that it appears to bo universally admitted that it is not in the interest of the community tiiat everyone should bo allowed to sell liquor in small quantities, how can it possibly bo in the interest of the community that the privilege should Bo given to a few? Obviously such a courso intensifies the evil sought to be avoided by adding a monopoly. Is it not time that people assorted their rights and said, "Away with such an absurd and undemocratic state of affairs, and givo to all members of -the community equal rights"? The question will bo asked, "How can that be done?" My answer is by doing away with the admitted evil. Forbid the sale of alcoholic liquors in small quantities. Impose restrictions 011 the salo of liquor which will be beneficial to the public, and which will affect all members of the community equally. 1 would suggest that an effective method of restricting tlio salo is to forbid any salo "of less than a fixed minimum quantity at any one time, to make a license feo of a reasonable amount payable by any person who desires to sell liquor, and also to forbid any liquor sold, to bo consumed 011 tlio premises where sold. Tlio further question arises as to what would be a reasonable minimum quantity. I think tlio present minimum allowed to holders of wholesale licenses would prove reasonable and satisfactory (which is not less than two gallons), but the two-gallon limit should be made to apply to each particular kind of liquor sold, and no mixing of liquors for the purpose of making up the minimum should be allowed. Regulations such as now exist would have to bo imposed to prevent anyone who has bought liquor from dircctly or indirectly selling it in small quantities, or even in quantities of two gallons, unless lie had paid the necessary license fcq enabling him so to sell. The Prohibition party has for years been trying to demolish "tlio right thief"—that is to say, to abolish the injurious monopoly j'.nd license given to a few licensed houses. The favoured licensees and their partisans have tried to discredit the Prohibition or No-License party by saying, "If you abolish licensed houses . you must abolish liquor"; or, to put it shortly, have raised the cry "No license, 110 liquor." "No liquor" was never part of the platform of the No-License or majority of the Prohibition party. That the Liccnso party should be allowed to interfere with the rights and privileges of the rest of the community by saying, "If our monopoly, .is interfered, with 110 one nliall lie allowed to have liquor" is intolerable, and yet they have partially

succeeded iu imposing unreasonable restrictious which were not asked ior by tlio majority of Prohibitionists. Another raised by the License party is that you are depriving the poor man of his liquor. Such a contention is manifestly absurd. The poor man will have equal rights with the rich man to buy liquor, as soon as lie can afford the luxury, but the liquor 'when bought would have to be consumed in his own home, or at some place other than the premises where bought. Of courso a man without money could not buy liquor, any more than ho could buy his wife or daughter a sillc dress or other article' of luxury until lie had saved some money over and above what was necessary for the proper feeding, clothing, and housing ol' himself and family. Only after a man lias made proper provisions for tlio support of himself, his wife, and family has ho any right to expend Ins earnings in personal luxury. It any mail who is now in the habit of drinking at hotel liars were to set aside each day or each' week a sum equal to the sum he now spends at the bar ho would soo.i ho ablo (if such money were not needed for his family) to purchase the minimum quantity of liquor, and lie' would obtain a great deal more in quantity for his money than he now does at the hotel bars, awl would probably obtain liquor of very much bettor quality, so that he would be a twofold, gainer. • I'iie National League will secure, I venture to think, the help of all - moderate 'men as well as that of the Prohibition or No-License party, in its effort;, to nut an end to the present unreasonable restrictions imposed on the community by the existing Licensing Acts and the present granting of a monopoly to a favoured few.

There is undoubtedly good work to be done by the National League.—l am, etc., 13. BALCOJIBE BROWN.