THE CARLISLE SYSTEM

Evening Star, Issue 19062, 3 October 1925, Page 11

THE CARLISLE SYSTEM

A CHURCH INQUIRY THE UNDENIABLE The official temperance policy of th# Church of Scotland as expressed through its Temperance Committee is support for the no-license clause of tho Scotland Temperance Act (writes a cor* respondent of the London ‘ Times ’). Rut ‘recognising that many who do-/ sire to promote the temperance causa m every reasonable way are of opinion that additional options (besides thosa of No-license, Reduction, No Change) should be given to the electorate in the Act,” the General Assembly last year instructed_ its Temperance Committee to consider the proposal and report. It has published its deliberation this summer in the form of an interim report. As it may be presumed unlikely that a committee which is devoting its main energies to carrying ’ No-license, resolutions all over Scotland started with a strong prepossession in favor of measures less extreme, what it has to say in favor of Carlisle ia evidence of peculiar interest. Not that the committee gives the Carlisle system its blessing. That would misrepresent tho report. It is critical, as might be expected, but it is not undiscriminating. “THE ONE CLEAR GAIN” On disinterested management generally, the report suspends its opinion. One conclusion, however, it does reach in this section;— The one clear, substantial gain * which disinterested ! management seems to promise is the removal or reduction of “private interest” in the traffic, and, consequently, of the mischievous political influence which the representatives of the “trade” will continue to exercise in their own selfish interests, and in opposition to reform, so long as the “trade ” re* mains in private hands. The committee then reviews the system of Government control atCarMa, It comments—a comment which will not; be grateful to the “ trade on the “ noteworthy ” efficiency of the business management. The committee took local opinion on the system. The police were “strongly favorable,” and produced figures to support their ■ experience and assertions. “The opinions of some business men were very conflicting,” but only one wished the old system back.” Six of the Carlisle clergy of various churches were unanimous in „• severely critical statements. “ After all, tms,” comments the report, “it was the more remarkable that they were unanimous in saying that a return to former conditions would be intolerable,” “ Two others (Anglican),” one of whom was also dissatisfied with the results, “ were strong supporters of the system.” In its summing-up the committee observes, in effect, that alcohol is alcohol, and that, under whatever conditions consumed, the effects will be what medical science states them to be. It also believes—a belief contested by the police—that there has been an increase in drinking among women at Carlisle (as, according to national statistics, there has been in the country generally). It notes, pertimently, that tin duty has not been laid on the management of conducting its work as 8 “ temperance measure or social expert ment, and asks “Why not?” The answer to that can only be given, in good time, by people and Parliament. “It means,” says tho committee, “ that Carlisle does not show what State management could accomplish with a strong sane temperance policy behind it.” From this tho committee passes on to the challengeable statement that “ as a Temperance measure, State management appears to effect very little indeed.” Is this tho end of it? Has the committee disposed of Carlisle? Not at all. The very next sentence reads, “ Yet there must be something in it, or its severest critics at Carlisle would not say, ‘ To go back to former conditions would bo intolerable.’ ” AN ISSUE FACED. In this part of the report the committee faces, as too many Prohibitionists are unready to face, a fundamental issue in tbe case. The view of the local critics, recorded above, “may be due,” it says, “to the fact that they feel they are no longer in the grip and at the mercy of the self-interested ‘ trade.’ ” Can it be due to anything else? The report goes on to acknowledge some practical virtues in this release. “It gives to the conduct of the traffic a flexibility otherwise unattainable,” citing tho abolition of grocers’ licenses at Carlisle and the power to make experiments. As it says:— It clears out of tho way the gigantic, .wealthy, well-equipped forces of vested interest, while the citizen is no longer checked in his voting by the thought that he is taking bread out of 'Others’ mouths. The importance of this cannot be over-esti-

mated. State management is the only plan that can do it thoroughly. Then it poses, without answering, two questions. “ Have we the right to compel citizens, whose consciences revolt from the traffic, to become participants in it?” “If the national traffic in liquor brought the nation an enormous profit over and above the revenue from duty, and Carlisle shows it can be done, could wo ever hope to uproot it?” To the first question _ common sense answers that these citizens are up to the neck in the traffic already. Annually they accept the financial advantages derived from the statutory monopoly in drink. The problem is whether this monopoly can be administered to the greater advantage of the public by licensed profit-hunters or by a public corporation. As to the second question everyone will answer according to his faith in democracy. _ Certainly any genuine local optionist will declare himself ready to abide by popular decision on the issue as and whoa and if it arosos in that form. Broad-minded reformers have no reason to be dissatisfied with the general run of the report. Carlisle is not perfect. That they knew. It is an etperim'ent, and an isolated experiment, which has still to find wider application under more generous conditions and is jealously watched and ceaselessly attacked by the all-powerful “trade” in conjunction with the more fanatical of the Prohibitionists. It is useless to tell us that while alcohol is sold, alcohol will bo bought. That also was known. But reform is not merely suppression, unless the English language is adrift. Suppose, which is (Mmciilt, that the “ trade ” and the fanatics are right. Suppose, in face of nearly ten years’ experience, that Carlisle is no better off to-day than it was ten or fifteen years ago. It is still true that not a penny goes from the receipts of Carlisle to bonuses and commissions on drink, not a penny to drink advertisements, not a penny to drink propaganda and propagandists, not a penny to help return “ trade ’ members to Parliament, not a penny, in short. to promote the influence, awoved and _ unavowed, of. profitraakers who regard it os a condition of their business that Parliament shall make no change In the law nor the people in its habits. If this, the lending achievement of Carlisle, is no contribution to “temperance reform,” the time has come for a drastic revision of the dictionary.