The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1927.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 10451, 5 December 1927, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED DAILY MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1927.

THE UPPER. HOUSE GOES TO MR COATES’ RESCUE

It is safe to say that interest in the licensing battle in Parliament has been apprecialily heightened by tiie attitude adopted by the Upper House. The result of the deliberations in that Chamber, it will be noted, is that the Bill has been reamended until now it again closely resembles the measure as originally introduced by Mr ’Coates. What will be seen is that both Chambers agree that only two issues should appear on future licensing ballot papers—National Continuance ’ and National Prohibition. The Upper House, iiojwever, reckons with Mr Coates that there should he an interval. of six years between licensing polls, whilst the Lower House maintains (on a majority vote, of course), that the interval should be only three years, as at present. And, again, on the matter of the majority to carry National Prohibition or to reverse such a decision, it it should be reached, the Upper House is at variance with the Popular Chamber. The Council would not listen to the contention of the Lower House that the bare majority principle should be continued. The “Lords”, however, did not go as far as Mr Coates would have liked and have substituted for |he bare majority a majority of to 471 per cent. It will bo recalled that Mr Coates wanted the majority to la; 5*5 to 45 per cent. The position would now appear to. be that it is highly improbable that the “dry” majority in the Lower House will accept what is proposed by the “wet” majority in the Upper House. If a compromise should he within the,bounds of possibility it is difficult to suggest what shape it could take. We don’t think the" supporters of the Prohibition planks in the Lower House, could have dreamt that the Upper - House would double the interval between the licensing polls Seemingly, however, they feared the Upper House might decide to handicap their side in respect of the majority necessary to carry National Prohibition. In view of what lias transpired, a considerable amount of figuring will go on all over the Dominion as to what would be the position if it should he finally agreed that the majority to carry National Prohibition should be made 524 to 474 per cent., as is now proposed by the Upper House. Tho only, basis that can he used for any calculations is, of course, the result or. the Licensing Poll of 1925, Most critics will take it for granted that if State Control he no longer, an issue some proportion of the State Control vote will go to the Prohibition party. For our own part we prefer, to believe that practically all the State Control votes in the past have been anti-Prohibition vcites. The figures for the 1925 poll were: National Continuance 299.590, State Control 56.037, or a total anti-Prohibition vote of 355,627, and Prohibition 319,4*50, or a majority against Prohibition, of 36,177. If it had required a 524-47’ vote fo carry Prohibition, i that side would have had to poll 354,418 votes to Win, whereas it polled only 319,450, and the anti-Prohibition aggregate would, in that event, have required not to have exceeded. 320,659, whereas it reached 355,627 votes.