ICELAND AND RROHIBITION

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 101, 2 May 1922, Page 8

ICELAND AND RROHIBITION

TO TUB EDITOR,

Sir, —With reference to the cable announcing that Iceland, after ten years of Prohibition, has repealed the law, I think that as no information is given as to the reason for this, you may agree that the public will be interested in knowing what has brought it about. . Iceland, with a population of approximately 100,000, adopted Prohibition by popular vote, 4645 to 3181 in .1908. Jn 1919 a measure aiming at repeal was introduced into Parliament there, but was defeated by 14 votes to 9. Ample evidence could be furnished to show that the people were satisfied with the law. Why, then, the repeal? The repeal is at the behest of .Spain. Spain lakes about half of Iceland's fish export—a main industry Spain has threatened a prohibitive tariff against Iceland fish, unless Iceland agrees to import Spanish wines and to repeal its Prohibition law. The Dundee Advertiser, commenting on this in October last,'said: "What makes the matter more curious is the fact that though there was no obstacle to the movement of Spanish wine into Iceland in the past, none of it went there."

Mr. John Magnusson, Prims Minister of Iceland, is on record that: "Prohibition in Iceland is a great success, and is supported by a great majority of the people."

Spain, then, has compelled a small nation to alter its domestic policy and repeal a law which actually worked no hardship on Spain. Spain is, of course, a large wine-producing country, and linked with France, another wine-producing country, in exerting pressure on other nation!, e.g., Iceland and Norway, to compel them to take products the majority of the people do not want.

It should be made perfectly plain that Prohibition in Iceland has been, repealed because it was a success, and that the pressure put on Iceland is part of the international plan of campaign of the combined liquor traffic in Europe, which, in August last, after a convention at Lausanne, founded a special branch in order to combat Prohibition in all lands. ■

One can only suppose that Spain has had Iceland cornered, and Iceland has had to surrender. Seeing that the advocates of liquor make a strong point of personal liberty, Spain's action in thus dictating domestic policy to another nation seems a" singular commentary on that doctrine. One would like to know why Spain and France have not issued an ultimatum to the U.S.A., where the Prohibition law has seriously cut into their trade in wines. Can it be that the reason is the U.S.A; can look after iteelf, while little Iceland is helpless?—l un, etc.,

J. MALTON MURRAY,

Assistant-Secretary,. . New Zealand Alliance.

27th ApriL