"STATE CONTROL"

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 89, 9 January 1919, Page 6

"STATE CONTROL"

Sir,—There appeared recently in your columns a most admirable statement from Lord. d'Abernnn regarding the. results achiever] in Great Britain under the Mquor Control Board. In it lie eayst ". . . convictions for drunkenness have fallen by ovw 80 ppr cent.; there has been n corresponding improvement in Public; health, a corresponding decrease in crime, in so far as' these ore. affected bv alcijliolism; and as there must -probably be added a proportionate reduction in unrecorded totals of minor excesses one can judge wliat a. vast amount, of inefficiency, unfitness, and ill-health has been saved the nation.". ■ . . I write to draw the attention of'your s readers to a most misleading use of the situation in England by the spokesman of the Moderate Leaßue'in New Zealand. That gentleman claims the happy. improvement in England as an argument for State control, but he fails to point out tliat State control as exercised by I/Ord d'Abernon mid his associates.is entirely different from the State control advocated by the New Zealand Moderates. State control in Great Britain simply means that in face of war conditions something had to be done with the liquor menace. A Board of Control was set up to reduce the hours of sale to Si per day n;id limit the output of spirits and bser to less than W per cent, of pre.wnr times. In short, it was the same class of action as New Zealand's early closing amendment, In other words, it was partial Prohibition, and splendid results certainly followed. On the other hand, State contrqi in New Zealand means the State purchase of the liquor traffic for or more and its. operation as. a Government enterprise. This is entirely different fioni Lord d'Abernon's policy.; It is"true that the.Control Board did try an. experiment in a limited area at Carlisle with State publichotises; ■ but the results obtained there were no better than those obtained all over England by shortened hours and limited output. In conclusion, let me say that State operation of the liquor trade has been abandoned wherever tried, notably in Russia. Sweden. South Carolina, and Saskatchewan. The small experiment at Cnrlislo in Great Britain referred to above can hardly be considered, of eufficient magnitude- to furnisn any guidance whatever, especially when Prohibition has proven so successful in Canada unci United States.—l am, etc., ■ „.„.,- W. D. DAYLET. Wellington, January 8, 1919. '.• .