LIQUOR TRADE REFORM

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 226, 12 June 1923, Page 5

LIQUOR TRADE REFORM

MR. ARMSTRONG REPLIES.

Sir,—I have just received a copy of your issue of Tuesday, containing a letter from the assistant secretary of the New Zealand Alliance. It is useless for Mr. Murray to ask questions based on a misrepresentation of the position created by the three issue ballot paper. . His letter amounts to a clear declaration that the Prohibition Party are out absolutely and s®lely for the complete abolition of alcoholic liquor as a beverage,and that they are not concerned with tlhe reform of the liquor laws. That being the case, they have their issue of “National Prohibition” to work for and to vote for. It is plainly no business of theirs how the forces opposed to prohibition may be divided, nor into how many issues the avenue for securing a democratic expression of the anti-prohibition vote may be split. The actual effect of the third issue that was submitted on the last two occasions has been to demonstrate a considerable demand for reform within the anti-prohibition vote, and to this may be attributed the movement which has resulted in bringing forward a practical solution of the difficulties with which this subject is surrounded. It is the confident opinion of those who have worked for many months in perfecting the, proposals, now put forward by the Licensing Reform Association, that the proposed third issue of “corporate control” will receive overwhelming support from the electorate. It is also their to resist the. attempt being made by the Prohibition Party to drive those who desire reform into either extreme camp by removing the third issue, and when the great principle involved is recognised it is hardly likely, that the legislature will countenance for one moment such an undemocratic proposal. The question of providing means for tlhe earliest possible realisation of the aim of the corporate control proposal is one for the consideration of its promoters and supporters, and not for the Prohibition Party. The public may rest assured that this phase of the matter will be duly safeguarded. In the meantime it is sufficient to state that the Licensing Reform Association will not pjßgw itself to be forced, into any false position by the Prohibition Party. In conclusion I have authority to state that Mr. Murray’s suggestion that the original promoters of the corporate control scheme indicated “that they preferred a straight-out contest between . prohibition and corporate control” is not correct.—I am, etc., R. A. ARMSTRONG, Secretary, N.Z. Licensing Reform Association. Auckland, June 7, 1923.