PROHIBITION.

Evening Star, Issue 19923, 20 July 1928, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

10 TEE EDITOE Sir, —“ Observer,” in a former letter, wrote of the lack of employment which would be peculiar to New Zealand under Prohibition. This objection against my pet idea is almost beyond refutation, except tor two facts. One is the increased employment m districts where partial Prohibition has been carried—as, tor example, Oaumru. The hotels under License employed twentynine' persons, ‘ but partial Prohibition reduced the numbers to ninety—a really sad state of affairs to bo sure. Invercargill employed in one licensed hotel twelve persons, and now has only fiftynine working on the premises. The second fact which I would put before “Observer” is that the ten or twelve millions now spent on drink each year would, when spent on other things under Prohibition, employ as many and more hands. “Observer,” writing of American conditions and his experience there, certain.}- shakes my Prohibition views considerably, tor how can one doubt the impressions of such an obviously unbiased and unprejudiced witness?. Even the evident satisfaction of the American public and the innumerable statement by Americans in favour of Prohibition count for nothing, or very-little, against “Observer’s” transient experiences. Numerous wellknown men of New Zealand have returned from America with an entirely different story —have, indeed, favoured the “ dry ” law, and actually stated that it was a success. We need the cold douche of unimpeachable evidence for such as “ Observer ” to correct all these false notions. The glaring headlines of the personal opinion of one lone woman in America and “ Observer’s ” ably-reasoned convictions sweep the whole Prohibition case overboard.

But, supposing one were to take a trip through New Zealand under the operation of the liquor traffic, what would one (ind in favour ol Prohibitionor wherewith to belabour the liquor traffic? Very little, 1 am afraid. A staggering record of drunkenness for so young a country, an alarming spread of drinking among youths of both sexes, but especially young women and girls; a high proportion of crimes committed under the influence of drink; innumerable 'accidents occurring when people were “under the influence”; a serious problem confronting the country because of the drunken motorist: the orphanages throughout the land having a large percentage of children in them because of drink and drunken parents; a divorce record which all too unmistakably testifies to the help drink has been to usher in good cheer in the home; a liquor traffic which is a model of a law-abiding organisation, A rely breaking any of the superfluous laws which seek to restrict it, etc. All these things and countless more would a traveller see in New Zealand under License, but only a fanatical Prohibitionist would urge any of these facts as evidence in favour of Prohibition. The same traveller would And in his travels that No-liccnse districts throughout the country were always prosperous, had better business than licensed ones, fewer crimes, that the various results of drink’s existence were conspicuous by their absence, with an improvement in property values, employment, and finance generally. Bub, of coarse, these things have no right to be used as arguments in favour of making the whole country “ dry,” since we know, on the authority of “ Observer,” that under entirely different conditions than obtain in America, among people the exact reverse of those going to make up the bulk of the population of America, we here in New Zealand would do exactly the same, or worse, than they are supposed to be doing there. . The implied compliment to the New Zealander is obvious, but then the whole case of these liquor writers is complimentary.—l am, etc., Libeetv. July 20.