THE-LIQUOR QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 52, 30 August 1917, Page 2

THE-LIQUOR QUESTION

TO THB EDITOR.

Sir, —Your correspondent the Rev. John Dawson has missed the point made in my previous letter. The chief point I made was that the resolution of the New Zealand Alliance was entirely misleading as to the purpose of the National Efficiency Board's report on the liquor question. The Alliance entirely ignored the Efficiency Board'e recommendation that immediate prohibition was to be accompanied by immediate reasonable compensation to those affected. And I added that reasonable compensation, if provided for by the Prohibition people, would raise thedr policy from one of plunder and robbery of their neighbours to one that suggests a policy of honest dealing. Mr. Dawson does not touch on that point. His evasion of the question : Why did the Alliance concoct so misleading a resolution? is so marked that it need not be further emphasised.

Your correspondent asks, Who ought to be compensated? Second, what they should be compensated for; third,. who Aould pay the compensation? . The National Efficiency Board answers all these three questions. -Here.is a complete sentence from the .Efficiency Board's report, which the New Zealand Alliance and Mr. Dawson have evidently overlooked or ignored:—"lt is manifest that injustice would arise if the licenses and the liquor trade were summarily terminated without reasonable compensation." Thus the National Efficiency Board has established the basic principle on which an honest proposition for prohibition may rest; and tins basic principle is one which must have the support of all honest men and women who endeavour to practise "that we should do unto others as we would that they should do to us." The Efficiency Board also answers Mr. Dawson's second question; and it says those who have invested "large sums of money in breweries, licensed houses, wine and spirit businesses, vineyards, hop gardens, generally in what is known as 'the Trade,' are the people to be compensated" for the loss they would sustain. Here is another complete sentence from the Efficiency Board's report:—"ln its (the board's) judgment, all interests having been considered, the'parties to be compensated are represented by the breweries, wholesale and retail licensed vendors, vignerons and wine manufacturers, hopgrowers, and the owners of properties tol which a retail license is attached." Tims Mr. Dawson has got his reply to his second question direct from the Efficiency Board's report, and it is this very report which the New Zealand Alliance is imploring the Government to give, effect to. But the resolution of the Alliance was dishonest in its purport and intention, inasmuch as it' carefully excluded any reference to the board'e bedrock principle of reasonable compensation to the pad-ties affected by the Alliance's destructive policy. The third question—Who should pay the compensation? —is also answered by the board's report m this way:—"The amounts to be paid by way of compensation, need ■not neceEsaiily be found in cash, but •the board suggests might be paid iv Government securities, bearing the sama rate of interest and with the same currency as the War Loan debentures." And the board proceeds in the two subsequent paragraphs of' its report, that this would be a sound investment for the State, that the result would be increased national efficiency, and, if the Government desired, the board would advise as to the constitution and procedure of a tribunal suitable to determine the amounts of compensation to be paid. Thus we have a clear statement of the position, and clear answers to Mr. Dawson's questions. The Rev. L. M. Isitt, Mr. Br. G. Denton, and others are coming into line on the question of "reasonable compensation," and the latter has exclaimed, "Let us buy ovit the Trade and shut it up for ever!" That, Sir, is putting in a nutshell the recommendations of the Efficiency Board, and if a reform is worth having, it is worth paying, for. It is neither-British, Christian, nor sporting to desire something that you think will do you good, and have it at the expense of the other fellow. —I am, etc.,

MODERATE,

28th August.