MR. C. P. SKERRETT AND THE ALLIANCE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 46, 18 November 1925, Page 10

MR. C. P. SKERRETT AND THE ALLIANCE

Sir, —In your issue of' November I Mr. C. P, Skerrett, replying to the Hon. L. M. Isitt, charges the New Zealadd Alliance with representing that lie had advised club members to vote for prohibition. This change cannot be substantiated. What the alliance did was to call attention to Mr. Skenett s advice to club members in which he informed them that State purchase and control could* not possibly be carried and asserted that thev “need have no hesitation in voting for that issue.” I he intent of Mr. Skerrett’s letter was obviously to induce those who would “hesitate” to vote for the middle issue, to vote for it in the hope of securing a Bill which Mr. Skerrett. prophesied “will contain those provisions which the associated clubs have sought to have carried into law.” We are glad to have Mr. Skerrett. s assurance that the middle lissue vote is simplv "a means of demonstrating to Parliament the need of reform .... of the system of retailing'Tiquor.” The statement of the alliance, published on November 7, that the onlv legitimate interpretation of the middle issue vote is that of “an expression of a desire for immediate reform,” is thus substantiated and confirmed bv Mr. C. P. Skerrett. . This middle issue vote is not a demand for another third issue on the. ballot paper under the same undemocratic conditions as the State purchase issue is now there. The middle issue vote, in short, represents, if anything, the disgruntled drinkers who are irritated bv the victimisation thev suffer at the hands of the liquor trade. As Mr. C. P. Skerrett is so sensitive about the matter of misrepresentation, I would like to ask him what lie thinks about, a few misrepresentations for which the Licensing Reform Association is responsible. Mr. Skerrett is a prominent member of that organisation, and perhaps he may be willing to tell us what his candid opinion is about these matters. For example, the paid agent of the Licensing Reform Association paid for a report that was published in the Napier “Telegraph” on September 11. That report contained a resolution passed by the Napier branch of the L.R.A., in which if was stated that the Prohibition Party was seeking to pledge its supporters to vote “only for such candidates as pledge •themselves in favour of prohibition.” The nuestions nut to candidates bv the New Zealand -Alliance and the replies thereto have now been published, and everybody can see that this statement by the L.R.A. is absolutely false. Further, the L.R.A. published a document printed on blue paper and got up to induce in the minds of the unwarv the notion that it was an official document. This blue leaflet stated that the liquor revenue was “paid at present bv those consumers .who escape taxation in other forms.” We say that this statement is absolutely false. The blue paper further said‘that if prohibition were carried householders would be taxed not less than £lO per annum to make good the revenue, that new taxation would probably be placed on the necessaries of life, and that Parliament would meet specially to consider the. question of revenue. These were all gross misrepresentations. Tn another pamphlet published bv the L.R.A. it was stated that: “The consumption of liquor in New Zealand is not onlv exceedingly moderate, but is .so small as to hardly amount to a medicinal dosage.” The official figures of liquor released for consumption in 1924 show the quantity to be 10.63 gallons per head, and, as there are thousands of non-drinkers, the actual amount per head of drinkers must be very much larger. We submit that this also is a gross misr«-’msenta<ion. In Mr. Skerrett’s own words, the L.R.A. “cannot escape the guilt of misrepresentation which no just cause -should need and which no cause can justify.”— I am, etc.,

I. MALTON MURRAY, _ Assistant Secretary, New Zealand Alliance. November 14.