PROHIBITION AND NATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 290, 27 August 1918, Page 7

PROHIBITION AND NATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Sir,—Beyond doubt any advice prof- | fered to tho nation by such a body i as the National Efficiency Board must command the serious and earnest conI sideration of every citizen. This j board is composed of men whoso ability i and integrity havo been proved in the I sight of alj men, and whose report I must carry corresponding weight. This i , being so, it behoves us all to weigh I very carefully that part of the report ! which advocates a measure of imme- ; diato and complete prohibition of the J manufacture, importation, sale or posI session of any alcoholic liquor. Now, there are two ways of looking at such a proposition, namely :—(1) Is it intended merely as a temporary measure, for the sake of greater economy and efficiency during the period of-the war? or (2) is it intonded to be a measure of permanence or of indefinite duration? If it is merely a temporary war measure, and wo are assured by such a body as the National Efficiency Board that it is necessary its adoption will, 1 believe, bo voted i'or by everyone. But if we are asked to impose on cur country a system of permanent exclusion of all alcoholic liquor, we should think twice before giving our consent. For this question of the advisabluness of total prohibition is a highly contentious one, and the opinions of citizens are nearly equally divided. ' Naturally tho whole body of conscientious i-dvo-<;at«s of total prohibition aro elaied to find their views backed by the Efficiency Board; and they aro preparing to bring up their reserves and launch the whole of tlieir well-organised army with a view to winning a decisive victory.

It would, however, be well to pause and consider carefully whether it lias been made clear that this is only a temporary war measure, in which case it would be safe and patriotic to vote for it; or, on the other hand, whether tho appeal to our patriotism is not a stratagem to induce us to vote for a measure whoso benefits many may consider to be more or less doubtful.

I have heard soveral ablo addresses, by men whoso integrity and ability carry weight, both from the pulnii and the platform, and it seems to me that they aro anxious .that tho question should be decided by a bare majority of the electors, and that only two issues should be presented, namely:— 1. Are you in fnvow of Total Prohibition? and

I 2. Arc you in favour of Continuance? Now these two issues give no chance to a man who believes that neither of these courses is the right one; but rathey that the State'should owji and control all tho liquor traffic. I think, therefore, that wo should demand that the issuo of State, control should bo added. I should like- to point out some aspects \vbi.:h should also" be considered. _ Undoubtedly it is a basic democratic principle, that a ma-jority should rale, and be able to carry out its measures; but all stable democracies have some- machinery, such as second chambers, and (sovereign or presidential votoes, which prevent or delay rapid or ill-considered legislation. It seems to bo too often forgotten that one of tho highest and noblest functions of rulers i s to protect minorities. In democracies majorities are tho rulers, and the protection of minorities is just as much incumbent on them as on other rulers. The tyranny in democracies has been well described as "tho tyranny of the odd man," in which 51 men mqy enslave 50, and rob them nl tlieir liberties. That is tho chief danger of legislation by referendum, without checks. It must result in a position of unstable equilibrium. Now, iie to the merits or permanent total Prohibition. It, soems to me that its advocates argue thus: Drunkenness or habitual nipping engenders crimo and lunacy, and ruins efficiency. It leads to waste in domestic economy, to unemployment , and poverty. Granted. Therefore, sweep the <ilcolml away, root and branch. The result will be—no crime, domestic thrift, and a great saving from the- abridgment of asylums and gaols. Jt sounds all right wlion put thus. But is the logic sound? Abuso of alcohol undoubtedly is disastrous to all; but tho averago, unbiased man known well that a vast number of good l citizens exist who uso alcohol moderately, and with probably bonofit to themselves, .mid no detriment to others. It is certainly falso to assert that n moderate use of light wino or light beer is in any way detrimental to tho user or to others. Tho largo majority of nicdic.il men bear this out. Is it thcreforo right to deprive a vory largo part of the nation of whaf, is a legitimate and harmless luxury because a few aro so depraved that they cniinot use it in moderation ? Wo might as well banish knives because they aro sometimes used ]\v men with unbalanced minds to out their own throats or those of others, j

Again, _ may I. aopoal to tlio experience of history? Prohibitionists should remember that the I'uritnns in Cromwell's time conscientiously bcliovod tliat thoy wore right in coercing their countrymen and debarring them from nil innocent amusements. This era of enforced dullness and gloom was followed by the era of Obftrles 11, whon natural reaction produced the most dis-

solute age- which England lias ever seen. Absii, omonl

Finally, would it not be infinitely bettor if we woro to concentrate- our i'liergipK on a course which would gain tho consent, as I believe, of a very large majority of tho citizens, namely, tho purelmse of tho liquor trado by the Staler , Only light and wholesome liquor should be sold, no private profit niiido, nnd therefore no meretricious inducements to drink. A man should lie ulilo to have his drink of light, wholesome beer with his meal, instead of seeking it in tho mysterious depths of a bar or dive. lam sure many of your readers will bear me out when [ pay that I havo known hundreds o-i families whose members drank boor or wino habitually with tlieir meals, and where goncration after generation there weri; m> drunkards. lam convinced that a moderate use of alcohol is mi innocent and beneficial luxury, and that such a condition of moderation is no unattainable Utopia. But nothing can be morn certain than that nil Prohibition will lio ineffectual and disastrous unless it is recognised that the key of the solution of the problem lies in providing counter-attractions. If ono devil is driven out and its place left empty, there will soon be an influx of soyen devils worse than tho iirst. It, might oven thus come about tbnt tho gaol accommodation might lined to be increased rather than diminished.

If you close tho bright bars, and proviclo no counter-attraction, men will bo driven into tho brothels, sly grogshops, and gaining saloons. You cannot expect a homeless man to wanclor about aimlessly all tho evening. 1 believo the Y.M.C.A. is on the right lines, but thp system needs to bo extended to suit all classes.

If the Prohibitionists rnfuse nil compromise, and'insist on forcing their measures on a largely unwilling and unprepared community, I believe that their action will retard the cause of true Temperance for a generation. Their agitation has so far done wonders, and T find it hnrd to over-state the improvement) in the temperance habits of New Zealanders, sinco 1 first know tho country forty-five years ago. But they must beware of too rapidlv filling old bottles with new wins: nnd should lie guided by tho old adage: Fcstina lente.—l am, etc., G. E. ANSON. Wellington, August 26, 1918.