THE LIQUOR ISSUE

Evening Star, Issue 17225, 15 December 1919, Page 3

THE LIQUOR ISSUE

[By Rev. James Milne, M.A.]

VI. DEVELOPMENTS ON STATE CONTROL. '

Such time as State Ownership and Control has bean chosen as the liquor policy in New Zealand, and a controller for the trarac imder the Licensing Amendment -Act ot 1918 lias been appointed, there will remain the •formulation, of plans, the iranung of conditions under which liquor is to be sold. It may- not bo presumed at pTesonfc what these may be; but without presumption it may be taken that in view of the marked success attendant upon the Carlisle experiment in the promotion of temperance-' the conditions attendant upon it and other experiments of like kind will have full consideration in determining what shall be done in the Dominion. The principle, for example, of the local advisory committee is almost sure of adoption. This means that representatives from borough and county councils, from the police, from the justices of the peace, and other public bodies in each district should be associated with the controller or his deputy to be a local committee for the district, to advise and help the constituted authority as to the appointment and furnishing of the State-controlled and Stateowned public-houses. Otherwise, municipalities for towns and: county councils for country districts might be constituted by tha controller the main advisory committees for their respective districts. These local advisory committees should be appointed not merely to help in initiating the scheme of State control, but should, of course, be permanent bodies, meeting from time to time to exercise an important work of supervision as to the public-houses in their respective districts, to consider any developments which irilgnt■"*£ ivrther be conducive to the maintenance and promotion of temperance, and generally to manifest that interest in the houses which alone could be evinced through living human influence. This is why. if the principle of the local advisory committees, as in the ease of Carlisle and other British experiments, is to be adopted in New Zealand, their conso lone as they are not rendered too unweildy from numbers, should be as representative of public interests as possible. Amongst representatives associated with borough and county councillors might well be members representing temperance organisations, ministers of religion, and philanthropic workers. When men givctheir hearts to any cau?e they are ever inclined to presumption as to its progress. Doubtless many in the Dominion face to_ face with the liquor issue yet undetermined at the polls are hoping for, as they are working for, the triumph of the State Ownership and Control. Their thoughtful, earnest conviction may lead them to infer that the majority of voters cannot well fail to see what appears so evident tc them—viz., that this is the temperance reform for which the time and circumstances in New Zealand are ripe. But there are other considerations. Such voters must remember there are those who desire the continuance of things as they are, and so will vote for Continuance",: others are firm in the conviction that liquor is an evil in itself, and for this, as yet others for some other reaaon, will vote for Prohibition. So the opinion is widely expressed that the result of the liquor poll voting will be what is termed "balanced.' This means, should such- result eventuate, that the. sum of the total votes cast will be about equally distributed between the three issues to be voted upon. Yet mors universally, is it ventured as an opinion that no particular issue will be carried, and so things as concerning liquor conditions will remain as they are. It is well for a man, whatever his personal conviction may be. to remember that often the unexpected befalls. It may be, then, that the result of the polls may be clear and decisively in favor of one particular issue ; it may be otherwise, and. as already suggested", the result be indeterminate. In such case, there should be a strong plea for the matter to be settled by some form of compromise. That the liquor controversy clouds many a political enactment of the day, and greatly confuses issues of much moment in the public life of the Dominion, will be generally acknowledged. The monev spent during the last 20 years, not to go farther back in tlie history of the liquor conflict, has been out of* all proportion to any permanent reform in the promotion of temperance won. The liquor controversv not merely colors political relationship's unduly, but it enters where it never should be acknowledged. It causes heartburning_ and produces a kind of veiled commotion in many communities, which at election times savors almost of tyranny. It forces distinctions of high moment, which ought never to be determined bv its virulence. Looking back on the past, and in consideration of the little advance gained in the way of permanent temperance reform, one is forced to the conclusion that this result has been evolved largely because the way of conflict has been" preferred to that of compromise. Surely, then, should there be no decisive result from the present polls, the time has come for this unseemly controversy to have its ending in some seemly, peaceable compromise. Why should not, as the writer has respectfully urged before, the liquor traffic be bought up by the State on the lines of the recommendation of the recent Efficiency Board? Once out of private hands, a Local Option measure mi»ht determine its fate in the various districts, according to local need and sentiment! This should mean that there might be local Prohibition in several areas in NewZealand, or it might mean otherwiss ; but wherever such local Prohibition should be enacted there would not be the argument that it amounted to nutting The profits of the many into ho hands of he few, as all profits under such a scheme of State ownership should accrue to the public, purse. If, again, it should be possible to have National Prohibition as a permanent enactment (which manv cravely doubt), surely it is the better wav to attain to «uch a permanency through State ownership than to carrv" the me~re opportunity of such drastic issue through a majority vote in controversy. There is yet another position to be faced m the way of compromise. Several temperance workers, it would seem, are not opposed to State Control as far as sale and conditions of sale are concerned., but object to the State as such taking'over the manufacture and provision of "liquor. This means, it may be presumed, that thev should not object to the Carlisle conditions, or somo. modification of them, as fatas supervision by advisory committees, mode of houses, and conditions of sale were concerned, but that thev should object to the expense of State purchase. This contention should require grave consideration, for, while the proposition does not aim at conserving the element of private profit in the sale, it clearlv does so as concerning manufacture and provision. Would not, then, the incentive to push sales remain with the manufacturers and providers? The great question as concerning such a compromise is : Would the slight gain won as concerning the sale be worth the risk of leaving the manufacture and provision in private hands? This is a consideration which should require much thought.