THE LIQUOR PROBLEM

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 300, 19 September 1928, Page 18

THE LIQUOR PROBLEM

VIEWS OF CORRESPONDENTS (To tho Editor.) Sir—ln his attempt to minimise the beneficial effect of six o’clock closing, the secretary of the L.R.A. makes a comparison with the year 1914, in which year convictions for drunkenness were substantially higher than for any previous year since 1900, and higher, than for any subsequent year. The year Idle was the second highest for the period 1900-27. The first big drop came in 1916 when, on August.2B, the anti-treat-iug regulations came into force, inese regulations were followed by six o'clock closing, which brought the next big drop m convictions for drunkenness, and they hate never since reached the pro-six o clock closin ß level. The secretary of the L.R.A. argues that “The greatest reduction took place before six o’clock closing. Does he suggest that we should help the tern perance trend” by, repealing the six o'clock closing law? With regard to the U.S.A., the tary of the L.R.A. quotes figures which the “New York World Almanac states were supplied by Senator Bruce (a notorious "wet”) to the Senate. In IJA the Senate Committee issued an official report which stated that ‘ln spite of increased severity on the part of most Police Departments, arrests for public drunkenness had decreased about oOO.UOp per year, according to well-known criminal statisticians.” The worthlessness of Senator Bruce’s figures is shown by the fact that Chicago drunk and disorderly cases arc quoted to prove an increase in drunkenness in Chicago. In Chicago there are no separate figures kept tor drunkenness, and “drunk and disorderly covers such offences as neighbourhood brawls, quarrels, thefts, assaults, and even traffic law violations. According to the secretary of the L.R.A., these are all drunkenness. „ . . , If the secretary of the L.R.A. mid looked a little further in the New York World Almanac” that he quotes he would have found a set of official figures supplied by the New York City Commissioner of Police. That record shows that, for the seven-year Pre-war pei iod, 1906-1913 (no figures available for ijusj under license, cases of drunkenness convictions averaged in New York City 34.863 per annum. From IJ-0 to 1. -6 drunkenness cases averaged only 11,400 per annum, a reduction of over 61 per cent., thus showing a marked benefit from prohibition. , , , . . ;, f . Although New York before and after prohibition is the real test, we may permit ourselves to make a comparison n the basis of the figures quoted by-the secretary of the L.R.A. between * York and 'Wellington or Auckland, the secretary of the D.R.A. used the figures provided by Senator Bruce, ami we wi do the same. These show New York with 12,017 arrests for drunkenness in 1925. In that year Wellington had 1159' convictions for drunkenness and Auckland 2054. Taking the tM fcr ™y in population into consideration, if Now York had put up the same recordl < s Auckland it would . ha ™ r ha j cases of drunkenness in 19-. J, but it had only 12,017. To equal Wellingtons record Now York would have had to put up 70,000 cases of drunkenness in IM instead of which it had only 1 ->Ol Thus, even the figures of the wets can be turned against them to-.show tl e advantage the community demes .rom abolishing the legalised liquor traffic. With regard to tho manifesto issued 24 rears ago by the Revs. John Dawson and F. W. Isilt, your readers, would notice that this was a protest ’against, the insidious attempt to handicap a "■rent and genuine social reform by attaching to it an unprecedented, mvim'" l ' of private rights and liberties. Under prohibition, law-abiding citizens will have nothing to fear in the way of an “unprecedented . invasion of private rights and liberties.” Whv does the secretary of the D.L..A. so shvlv refrain from telling your readers what, restoration has done for Ohtnemuri? The answer is that he is afraid )o l d havm already’ exposed the statement of vour correspondent, Mr. Gerald -1. Wilburnc with regard to drunkenness in Chicago, and therefore need not do it d °Mn Wilburnc and gentlemen, of his kidney argue that prohibition in the USA. has produced deplorable incieases in' crime and demoralisation.. They say, in effect, that making intoxicating liqum hard to obtain has most disastrous insults upon the morals of. the community. In their view, beer. wine, and whisky arc a species of magic elixir making lor ri'-htcousness and rectitude, and, according to them, we should look upon bartenders and liquor sellers as hig;h 1P engaged in an ennobling and lofty burn ness that is the safeguard of the nation. The U.S.A. Census Bureau has published a report showing a contrast between the years 1910 and 1923, which records a falling off in commitments to prison of 37 7 per cent., in drunkenness of per cent., in disorderly conduct cases 51.5 per cent., assault commitments o 3 1 per cent., prostitution cases -8.8 pet cent. These are official figures, issued by the Government, and not mere statcnicnts uttered in Congress and emboihed in the Congressional Record, .ilthou, 1 this particular census is embodied in I lie Congressional Record ot 1 ebruaty 18 1926. As Mr. Wilburnc appears to be’a student of that publication he -will be able to confirm my statement. I am sure it must be news to many New Zealanders that the liquor business is the safety device that . keeps New Zealanders back from a terrible moral abyss —that, at nil events, is the claim made bv those who want it Io continue. Unfortunately for them it is. a . “ att slatistieal fact, that intoxicating liqnor figures as a factor iu more than half tin. cases of serious crime m our courts, it is a fact that the New Zealand Society for the Protection of Women and Ufi.il; dren at Wellington has stated that oper cent, of the cases they dealt with were directly due to drink, and od pct cent, of the remainder would never hate become acute but. for drink. It is a fact that a large number of childicn become chargeable to the State each year because of drunkenness on the pint of the parents; it is a fact that the special committee appointed by tne Board ot Health to investigate venereal diseases said "There appears no doubt that alcohol is an important lactoi in I be prevalence of venereal disease. f t is a fact that Sir F. Truby King, h' b advice to expectant mothers, said, -'tatters are made worse by taking alcohol or stout, because then mother and child arc both doubly poisoned”; and it is a fact, that, following upon the restoration of license in Ohinemuri, drunkenness lias inc.eased 275 per cent, per annum and prohibition orders 390 per cent., whilst all other serious offences show regiettable increases. All these facts shatter conclusively the hypocrital pretensions of the liquor tnifiic as a preserver ot morals and regenerator of the race. Mr. Wilburnc says that many <»t the .churches in the U.S.A, have already turned right round against prohibition. I invite him Io quote any resolution adopted by any of the churches which asks for repeal of the prohibition law or the return of the saloon. I conclude with one quotation that gives a striking fact about Chicago, where Mr. \\ ilburne alleges such terrible things are happening. On June J, 1914, the "Chicago Tribune” stated: "A three months’ survey showed that 14,000 women and girls frequented every twenty-four hours the. back rooms of saloons in Maddison and North Clark Streets and Cottage Grove Avenue.” Jane Addams, internationally known as a social work ot forty’, years experience, said to the Chicago Women's Club on February 1, 11128: •‘Disreputable dance halls were formerly’ drenched with liquor. There has been a surprising increase of largo and decent dance halls, where liquor is not permitted.” I am, etc., J. MABTON MURRAY, Executive Secretary, N.Z. Alliance. Wellington, September HI., Sir,- The Kcv. M. I’. W. Lascelles, of Hie New Zealand Baptist Church, is not convinced that, prohibition has proved a wicked and corrupting venture wherever it has been tried, lie would endeavour

to make your readers believe it has been beneficial to the cliurclics. He does not know that it lias been denounced by thousands of leading American citizens, both men and women. Take the case of Canada. There every province gave prohibition a trial lor •cars. Quebec on April 10, 1919, denounced prohibition by referendum. Ju 19’’1 British Columbia shot prohibition dead. Mauitoba threw prohibition upon the scrap heap as a corruptand degrading iutluence iu 1923. In the oilowing year Alberta kicked the evil thing out of bounds. Saskatchewan, alter being debauched by prohibition lor eight years, determined to return to righteousness and an honourable way of dealing with the control and regulation ot alcoholic liquors. Ontario, with its population ot three million souls and over lour hundred square miles of territory —double the size and twice the population of New Zealand—threw prohibition into the dustbin. In appealing to the people to denounce prohibition the 1 rime Minister, the Hon. G. Howard I’crguson, said: ••No man is more concerned for the welfare of the people of Ontario than I am and 1 am deeply concerned lor the well-being of the children ot tins province, and I say prohibition has broken down It is impossible of cniorcement because it is disregarded and held in com tempt bv such large numbers of people. Canon Cody, of St. Paul’s, Toronto, alter seeing the evils of prohibition, which he had supported years before, worked and fought for its expulsion as an evil thing to introduce and have in any community of formerly temperate and religious people. And when a man like that, a man who has devoted his life to the moral and spiritual uplift ol the people, speaks and acts for the expulsion of prohibition, the Rev. Lascelles says only’ men who do not count are opposed to it! Ontario defeated prohibition by giving the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson a powerful majority. And it should be recollected that, the Dominion of Canada is peopled with Britishers whose standard of living is probably, religiously judged, higher than the religious standards ot the people of New Zealand. Yet. the churches throughout Canada combined to get quit of the very evil thing that the Rev. Lascelles hopes will be adopted by New Zealanders. If Mr. Lascelles would like to be really enlightened as to the evils of prohibition at -work in Canada let him lead Professor Arthur Saint-Pierre s book “The Moral Balance-sheet of a Great. Social Experiment,” and I believe he will not as a patriotic lover of New Zealand and a religious man utter another word in favour of prohibition for this Dominion. The religious women of Ontario turned en masse against prohibition because it was degrading and debauching the young men and women of that province. Can Mr. Lascelles work for the introduction of prohibition here when it docs that and has done it throughout Canada? _ The same degradation of lhe youn n is "oing on in America to-day, and the church people are turning against prohibition iu vast numbers. tney aic doing so in New Zealand and the c orgy, like Mr. Lascelles, does not know it. I know one church—the Methodist whereof it has been openly and publicly staled that the members arc withholding their subscriptions towards the prohibition movement because they houestly’ believe that prohibition has in the United States (as it has done in Canada) a complete failure. The Rev. Frederick J. Melville, pastor of' St. Matthew’s, White Plains, New York, says: “Ministers, generally speakin” are ignorant concerning the real moral and sound status of Um peopic in the country under prohibition. Ami this clergyman says: “If the church continues to sustain prohibition their doois arc in grave danger of being banged shut ’’“Why,” he asks in another part of his work on the church, “why are thousands of church pews empty. u the church wants to make an honest confession it will have to admit that . . the preaching of prohibition in the pulpits of the churches takes the lead as the outstanding cause for that condiis useless to follow J. Mallon Murray through his maze of meaningless yerbiace Only one word in conclusion. The Federal Capital Territory was hitherto “dry.” Uoro J heve f ' va L, liquor interests, no question of compensation, just the evils of prohibition to vote upon. What was the result t In ‘•The Dominion on feeptembei 4, I9y'-> was published lhe result: By a majority of three to one the people of the Capital Territory determined to put an end to prohibition by voting for the sal. of liquor throughout that area, and the Government has accordingly decided to ksue i“enses for the sale of alcohol,c kC’JL’he’experiment of prohibition has failed completely everywhere it. has been Mven a fair trial. Why waste time and money and get trouble by having it in New Zealand? The electors ot New Zealand must know these facts, and all the persiflage of Mr. Lascelles and J. Malton Murray cannot hide them from au intelligent public.—l am, etc., WM. A. PHILPOTTS.

Lower Hull, September 11. VS • Has Mr. Lascelles or Mr. Mallon'Murray read what nublished on September 4? In tb.it is Tno Dr F L. Hoffmann, consulting statistician to the Prudential Insurance Company ot America, is reported thus. ‘‘The homicide record of American cities remains the outstanding .indic tment o nur American civilisation. This statistician also affirms that the ciiine in America exceeds that of all other civilised countries during the last ten years. A’his 'correspondence is now closed.]