LETTERS TO EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 195, 15 May 1922, Page 8

LETTERS TO EDITOR

ICELAND’S REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ,

Sir, —It is a pity, a great pity, that the prohibitionist is not careful in stating the facts of any matter that has prohibition as a subject. Mr. Malton Murray’s statement on behalf of the prohibition organisation, which you published the other day, is certainly misleading. Although prohibition was roted upon in 1908. it w'as not until 1912 that this measure was put into operation in Iceland ; so that the cablegrams you published announcing the repeal of the prohibition law in that country was correct when it stated that prohibition had been in operation for ten .years. Incidentally, a total vote for prohibition of only 4645 out of a population of 100,000 (Mr. Murray’s figures) seems scarcely large enough to be taken as' expressing the will of the whole people. Aft. Malton Murray says that “the repeal is at the behest of Spain.” That statement is .not correct. The Althing (Parliament) of 42 members passed the prohibition law in 1912, and the Althing repealed it in 1922. (Hie repeal is ■ the result of dissatisfaction with prohibition on the part of alDthe people of Iceland, dissatisfaction which lias grown year by year until it has - culminated in a decision to sweep this abominable law out of existence. What has Spaip to do with that? The next misstatement made by Mr. Murray is this: “Spain takes about half of Iceland’s fish export, her main industry.” This is not a fact. According to the Statesman’s Year Book, ' Great Britain takes more ■ than half Iceland’s export of fish, tho rest being divided amongst other nations, amongst whom Norway, United States of America, Denmark, and France age large customers. How, then, can Spain take “about half?” Spain’s total imports of all Iceland’s products are scarcely more' then, half Britain’s imports of fish alone. Much more trade is done with the United States of America than with Spain. Mr. John Magnusson was one of the Ministers for Iceland appointed by the King of Denmark, and it was About 1913 that he made the statement that prohibition in Iceland was a great success. Those; who promoted the adoption of prohibition in Iceland are those who have now denounced it, and Mr. John Magnusson was one of the latter also. The Rev. Sigurdur Stefansson was (along with Mr. Magnusson) a strong supporter of the prohibition- law, ana i helped to its enactment in 1912. His reasons for ; supporting prohibition are just the reasons that induce, many wellmeaning people to support prohibition in this country. The Rev. Mr. Stefansson, to quote his own words, “hoped that prohibition would improve the morals of the that it would stop over-indulgence m alcohol, that it would save money, and that it would bring spiritual as well as material blessings to the people of Iceland.” Twelve months , ago the same reverend gentleman declared in the Althing, or House of Representatives, that those who had voted for prohibition had been “shamed” by its operations, and “each year that passed the history of the prohibtion law became more and more sad.” Prohibition brought illicit liquor, vile substitutes, increased drinking amongst young people, and sent up the cost of living, and the pastor regards enforcement of the law as hopeless: “I am stating facts purely and simply, and I am sorry to have to speak them. Experience shows that the people of Iceland have not gained by the prohibition law. but, on the contrary, thef have suffered Joss.” It would thus appear that Spain has had nothing to do with the repeal of the law in Iceland, for the Rev. Mr. Stefansson, though formerly a._ prohibitionist. proceeds“ The practical result of the prohibition law is that every day you can see signs in Reykjavik, and in ether towns, that the consumption of spirit is no smaller now than it was before the prohibition law.” And what is worst of all is that “in Iceland the lack of resnect for the prohibition law is undermining respect for other laws.” > The Rev. Air. Stefansson’s drastic indictment of prohibition should be read and considered carefuly by all Now Zealanderb, but as I do not feel justified in taking up more of your news space with extracts therefrom, arrangement has been made for a more extended report of the speech in another part of this issue, and your readers are referred to that announcement,.—L am. etc., J. ARTHUR HARRISON, Publicity Afanager for the National ■ Council of the Licensed Trade. May 6.