LICENSING ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 4, 5 July 1927, Page 8

LICENSING ISSUE

ALLEGED BALLOT-PAPER

COMPACT

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Mr. A. S.- Bankavt, spokesman lor the liquor traffic, seeks to. evade the real issue, which is: "Did the representatives of the liquor traffic and. the New Zealand Alliance iv 191S enter into an agreement or compromise in regard to the threeissue ballot paper?"- Mr. Bankart says they did. Much use was being made of this assertion in 1922 just before the poll. The liev. It. S. Gray, who was alleged to have made the arrangement, was then alive, and he denied the allegation. Mr. A.^ K. Atkinson, then president of the N.Z.A., and the late Key. John Dawson, then general secretary of the N.Z.A., both ot whom were present with Mr. Gray at the interview, when it is said the compact was made, also denied it. Sir I'rancis Bell in 1918, who was in charge of the legislation, stated that both sides had declared they had no authority to • make any compromise, and that no agreement between them had been made.

The Liquor Trade and the X.Z. Alliance profoundly distrust each other. The Trade asserts that a compact was arranged and yet have failed to produce a single line o£ writing from the Alliance discussing or confirming any such compact. The records of the Alliance contain nothing in the nature of discussion, agreement, or compromise with the Liquor Trade on this subject. Is it likely that such a compact would be made in an atmosphere of mutual distrust without written confirmation? I repeat that Mr. Bankart's statement is absolutely untrue. It is quite possible that the Trade made a bargain with somebody about the three-issue ballot proper, but who ever was the other party to the bargain, it was certainly not the New Zealand Alliance.

Mr. Bankart contends that the abolitionists are in a minority. Well, Sir, if we arc discusisug minorities, let us discuss them in full. The present unfair aud ridiculous legislation putt all issues in a minority—that is to Bay, only majorities against' every issue are recorded, and. no definite decision is reached. Viewed from this angle, it will be seen that the ee'.ctors consider Prohibition to be more desirable than either of the other two issues. The 1925 poll produced a majority against Prohibition of only 36,177, against Continuance it was 75,887, and against State Purchase and Control 563,003. iir. Bankart and the Liquor Trade wish the present undemocratic three-issue ballot paper to continue because it procures the continuance of a system condemned by a majority of 75,897 voters. The polls conclusively show that the majority of the voters are opposed to the continuance of the present system. In your «üb-leader on the Gaming Bill you say, "The Government should insist that the majority should rule." Should not this excellent principle be applied to Licensing legislation? Prohibition had in 1925 a majority of 19,860 over Continuance, and a majority of 263,413 over State Purchase and Control.

As to the pledges of members of Parliament, these are given by them to their constituents, who have the right to ascertain candidates' views on public questions, and to expect them to vote in the House in accordance therewith. The Alliance has no power to absolve a fember from pledges given by him to hs« constituents. This spacious and beautiful gesture in favour of Parliamentary liberty pmaeks of mockery coming from arTrade which announced its intention "to oppose the return of any candidate who pledges himself to the Prohibition Party," and it would make the preservation of our social iibetries (meaning Liquor Trade profits) "the foremost question in the selection of our representatives in Parliament." Moreover, last session the Liquor Trade bluntly tola Members of the House that it' the middle issue on the ballot paper was eliminated they desired the Bill to be dropped Yet knowing these things, Mr. Bankart, brewer, in the character of comic corner man for the Liquor minstrel*, rises to plead that Licensing legislation «honld be dealt with "a*'- the judgment of the members themselves may dictate." Vastly amusing. On the other hand, the Alliance, •while opposing the Bill on various grounds, did not ask for it to be dropped—it desired that it. should be given a fair run in the House so that needful amendments might be made by members "exercising their legitimate ■ functions. Let us have legislation which will ennble the people to settle this question decisively on a really democratic basis in accord with your own demand of "majority rule"; not, be it noted, a majority of two against one as at present.—l am, etc., J. MALTON MURRAY,. Executive Secretary, N.Z. Alliance. 4th July.