PRINCIPLE & EXPEDIENCY

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 41, 16 August 1918, Page 3

PRINCIPLE & EXPEDIENCY

TO THi EDITOR. Sir, —One of the Canadian speakers at last week's Prohibition meeting in the Town Hall is to be complimented on his refreshing candour in illustrating tho present position of the No-License movement in New Zealand by the beautiful story of the impecunious undertaker and 'his wiles. It appears that the Alliance undertakers are prepared to concede what they admit to bo morally indefensible in order to bury the "corpse" by a subterfuge. They will sacrifice principle for efficiency regardless of consequences. If the Efficiency Board's findings have any value, they should surely supple, ment rather than supplant the- higher ground on which tho great body of antiliquor sentiment is based. The swapping horses in mid-stream is usually considered' of doubtful advantage, and in tins case it is extremely perilous. It is

true that there is urgent need to get rid of tho troublesome "corpse," which even the Moderate League does not care to father, and a swe-et and sober New Zealand would be a splendid bargain at five millions frote the material standpoint. It is also trite that we want the Germans out of France and Belgium, and to pay them a huge indemnity to compensate for tho great sacrifices involved in this occupation would be much cheaper than the cost in blood and treasure required to turn them out. But this is hardly the British way. Rev. R. S. Gray refers to the past, when, a large sum was paid for the emancipation of the slaves. Would Britain pay sixpence today for such a purpose? i

How my fellow workers will take to a scheme which proposes to further endow the capita-list, and drive out the employees penniless, remains to be seen. If the Prohibition reactionaries persist, and secure a referendum on the compensation basis, ;t is probable that the rich young man (the State) will repudiate the "corpse," and- as it is to be a costly funeral; or none at all, neither the elaborate coffin, nor the plain box, will be required for the "Trade," which is very much alive still. I am sorry to say that in such an event many old friends will have to remain neutral, or record a hostile vote.—l am, etc.,

D. J. ALDERSLEY, Lower'Hutt, 14th August.

George Stewart wants to know liow the Rev. R. S. Gray "can reconcile his .statement regarding Prohibition and compensation with that of the Chairman of the Efficiency Board in replying to the miners on t?iis question, as quoted by the Hon. Mr. Russell in your issue of 25th July. The Hon. Mr. 'Russell says: 'These replies emphasised that the com ponsation would be for the good-will only and determined by a special Court.' Now. Sir. there is a good deal of misunderstanding in.the public mind on this point. Mr. Gray's statement does not coincide with that of fche President of tho Efficiency Board, and it is up to the reverend gentleman to state which is correct. He also informed the audience that he had made up a lot of balancesheets in .his time, and that he would like to make the balance-sheet of tho liquor traffic. He said he would put down on one s'de all the Trade claimed and 50 per cent, on top of that. Than on the other side he would put down all this traffic cost the Government, and, when completed, tho balance-sheet would show that the Trade owed money to the Government. Notwithstanding this-, however, ho urges a further payment to the Trade of £4,500,000. If his balance, sheet is correct, his claim for further payment to the Trade certainly raises a doubt as to his value in drawing up further balance-sheets. At .the close of his stirring appeal to the audience, for compensation to the Trade, he reminded them that the British Government paid £20,000.000 for the abolition of slavery. I wish to point out to the reverend gentleman that the two cases are not analogous. On the one hand, the slaves were the private property of their owners, and as such the owners had some claim for compensation. The action of the British Government at that time in purchasing the liberty of the slaves at such a cost was a glorious one, and makes us feel proud we were horn under the Union Jack. On the other hand, we are simply dealing with a trade which is not in the best interests of the country. That bein? so, there is only one course open to right-minded persons, that is to vote it out of existence."