THE LICENSING BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 19712, 12 November 1927, Page 6

THE LICENSING BILL.

Two correspondents in last night’s issue took us severely to task for the measure of approval which we gave earlier in the week to the Licensing Bill introduced by Mr Coates. One of our correspondents wrote that “ a fair, candid, and unbiased review and pronouncement on the licensing issue is not to be expected from the editorial columns of the ‘Star.’” The other correspondent stated our article to have been “ unusually pro-liquor traffic, even for the ‘ Evening Star,’” and one which “ could well have been the production of an agent of the liquor traffic.” How completely out of touch we are with that traffic is proved to-day by a manifesto issued by a conference of representatives of all sections of the trade, hold in Wellington last night. The gist of this manifesto is contained in the sentence: “The licensed trade has decided that it is unable to give its support to the Bill.” The manifesto makes very plain the main reason lor this opposition. It is the proposal to eliminate the State Control issue and revert to a two-issue ballot paper. The New Zealand Alliance finds fault with some of the provisions of the Bill, but certainly not with this! provision. It is perfectly safe to say that the main reason why the Alliance wishes this Bill to come before Parliament is that it proposes to eliminate the middle issue. And the counting of heads shows that the members of Parliament pledged to vote for the elimination are about double the number of those who have disclosed themselves keen for the retention of State Control. The third issue has been tried at three licensing elections, and, though it may have given satisfaction to the “trade,” it has not done so to any other section of the community. When it was introduced the very reasonable plea was given that it would provide an opportunity of expressing an honest opinion and a straight vote to those who wanted neither Prohibition nor the continuance of the conduct of the “trade ” on previously existing lines. It had been thought that this section of the public might be disclosed as a numerous one. Events have not proved it; To our knowledge a considerable proportion of the relatively meagre support accorded to State Control at the poll came from those who have had no qualms over . voting Continuance, but who hoped to swell the total for the middle issue to a size which would justify its retention on. future ballot papers. It is our belief that these

tactics largely accounted for the increase in the State Control vote from 1 35,727 votes in 1922 to 56,037 votes in 1925. But, even so, on tho latter occasion only one voter in twelve favored the middle issue. Minorities have rights; The' question is; whether so small a minority should bo catered for by the inclusion of a provision which, even in tho very remote contingency of its over becoming operative, would be open serious criticism on both ethical and material grounds. It was for such reasons that we did not deplore tho proposal to'revert to the two-issue ballot paper. The argument responsible for its being given a trial had been proved by results largely a myth. So the trial ought to end. We assume that on this point, if on no other point connected with this very vexed question, Prohibitionists will agree with us. Why, thou, do their spokesmen virtually accuse us of being agents of the Liquor Party, and of making unfair and untrue assertions whenever we venture to discuss the licensing issue? Wo desire to sec this Bill go before this Parliament this session, so that tho terms and conditions under which next .year’s poll will be taken shall be fixed and known sufficiently long before the campaign proper opens. The New Zealand Alliance desires this also. It may be misrepresentation of tho “ trade ” to say that its representatives take' tho opposite attitude; hut their manifesto certainly does not give tho impression of a keen wish that this Bill should go before Parliament. The reason is obvious enough. Tho manifesto “deplores the practice resorted to by the Prohibition Party of extracting pledges from members of Parliament on the licensing question.” But what is done cannot now bo undone. Nor could any such practice be prevented in the future. Surely it has been recognised by now that in this affair the gloves have long since been taken ofl.