THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1303, 5 December 1911, Page 9

THE NEW ZEALAND ALLIANCE.

ITS WRIGGLING POLICY. HOW IT SOMERSAULTED! The manifesto published in September of 1904—-seven years ago—vigorously denounced tho famous Clauso oin these terms: "To make the possession of liquor a crime, tho effective detection of which would require tho correlative right of search in every house, would be to establish an odious and inquisitorial tyranny, utterly foreign to tho fundamental principle of British law, and to the whole spirit of British law." In 1901 tho Prohibitionists denounced the making of a crime, to uso Lincoln s phrase, of that which is no crime; and in 1911 they turn a somersault and approve, applaud, and dctermino to enforco tho right of search of every house. They are now working vigorously to establish an odious- and inquisitorial tyranny utterly foreign to the fundamental principle of British law. Will the New Zealand Alliance tell us that what was inquisitorial, odious, and tyrannous in 1901 is right now, and not a violation of the principles of British law? What do the Prohibitionists or the New Zealand Alliance care for the principles of British law? If the .people of New Zealand are fools enough to help them to carry Prohibition and NoLicense, the right of search of every private houso is established and tho possession of beer (even home made), wine, or whisky is a crime punishable by fine (X 100), or 'mprisonment (three mouths). When Prohibitionists in seven years swallow their own words, what will they not swallow? The N.Z. Alliance leaders met yesterday morning in solemn conclave and renounced the idta that tiiey sanctioned tho Rev. Mr. Hammond's declaration that wine is an ovil in itself, and that after ten years its importation for medicinal and sacramental purposes would bo prohibited. For fourteen days they allowed Mr. Hammond's' utterance to for Gospel truth, and it was only when it was discovered to be "odious, inquisitorial, tyrannous," and opening the door to religious persecution that the New Zealand Alliance thought fit to discount thoir paid agent's avowal of the next step of the Prohibition movement. When what the N.Z. Alliance formerly denounced as "tyrannous" they now press forward as "reasonable," what grounds are there for believing what the N.Z. Alliance now says with regard to tho prohibition of wine for sacramental purposes? They said in 1901 they would never go as far as they are going in 1911; and if Mr. Hammond had not let the cnt out of tho bag the Now Zealand Alliance would doubtless have pushed forward for acceptance in seven years— not ten as Mr. Ilammond said—the prohibition of the importation of sacramental wine, and opened the door for religious persecution of the worst type. Tho executive of tho N.Z. Alliance ?aid yesterday morning that it "is satisfied that the Prohibition party would never carry Hio principle of Prohibition to such lengths," and. would "oppose any iucli extension as a violation of the principles of religious liberty." Bah! .Seven years ago (ho New Zealand Alliance opposed tho proposal to make tho possession of liquor a crime as something "foreign to the fundamental principle of British law," but they to-day approve of what they then vigorously opposed, and are asking the people to >jelp them to impose'what they then '.ailed "odious, inquisitorial, and tyrannjus." Tho conclusion is: You cannot trust the New Zealand Alliance. It has already deceived the people of this country, nnd it is time tney wore prevented from continuing tlio policy of deception.*