Smith-Trestrail Debate.

Grey River Argus, Volume LVII, Issue 10520, 24 January 1903, Page 1 (Supplement)

Smith- Trestrail Debate.

O^era Houss , Monday, January 19th

.The Opera House was literally packed ou the occasion of the Prohibition debate between Mr T M Smith, representing for the occasion the Grey Licensed Victuallers Association aud the Rev Mr Trestrail, President of and representing tke Greyrnoutli Bronck of tlie New Zealand Temperance Alliance. Tue correspondence iii the Argus and circumstances that led to the debate being held are f resli in the minds of and well known to our readers. Punctually at tke time appointed the .chair was taken by A R Guinness, Esq, MHR, who briefly introduced the speakers aud their subject, and asked for the debaters the fair and impartial hearing always accorded by a Greymouth audience, fie tken announced tke arrangement of tke debate and stating it was confined to tke niancfesto of tke L V A of Greymouth published on tke 25th of November 1902, wkick read as follows: —

Liberty ! Independence ! Prosperity ! Prohibition means loss of Revenue locally of over LISOO annually ; also loss of employment, entailing serious hardship to scores of families in the district. ' Remember — Experience proves that Prohibition means social and commercial stagnation, increased taxes, sly grog selling, and a multitude of evils.

\ Mr Smith, who received a very enthuiastic reception then opened the debate as follows ; Mr Chairman, Ladies and GentleMEN, — I don't know if it is necessary for me to apologise for my appearanci here to night, being as I am a strange to most of you if so cay only excuse is that there did not appear to be an} one else willing to accept Mr Tres trail's challenge, and I thought it a pity that when all the best of th argument was on our side that such •■< challenge should be left and not taker up. An objection was taken that 1 did not officially represent the Licensed Victuallers Association but that ha> now been happily overcome and that body has appointed me, for to-night only, their representative and tha appointment I gladly accepted as it appeared to me the only way in which I could arrange to meet Mr Trestrai! on the platform. Tbere is one drawback, however, to the official position I hold as ]^m restricted to supporting the statements made in a manifesto issued by tne L.V.A. on the 25th oJ November last, which you have jns« heard read by the Chairman. I shouln of course have much preferred to be able to discuss the question of prohibition unfettered, but I was most anxious that the debate should not fall through and I therefore agreed to be bound by this manifesto. I think that y«u will agree with me that it raises very fairly the issues and shews clearly, at any rate, the evils that will result from prohibition and I prop©se to-night to prove to you that eveiy specific statement in this manifesto is borne out and more than borne «ut, by the facts, and further, under the heading of a multitude of otker evils I shall give you some startling facts which even if they d© not convert these of you here tonight who support the principle of "No License" will, I hope, at, any rate have t;ie effect of rousing you to further enquiry before again casting your vote for such a measure and I shall be satisfied and more than satwfied if anything I say to-night has even so much t ffect as I know from experience that enquiry will lead to only one conclusion, and that is that prohibition is not only immoral in p>inciple but is unsuccessful in practice. And now I will deal first with the specific charges alleged in our manifests agdnst prohibition. First, as the qu"stion of our pockets is of interest to most of us I will take the charges, that prohibition means 10-^s of revenue locally to the extent of LISOO, and also that it means increased taxation. I donot know who is directly responsible for the drawing up of the manifesto, but whoever it is he is to be congratu lated because if he errs at all he doeso on the side of caution and makes no reckless statement. I have therefor. no difficulty whatever in proving that prohibiti«n would result in a Jocal loss of much more than LI 500. I take it that I am not exceeding the bounds of fairness if I t<ke locally to mean the Borough of Greymouth and the County of Grey. Take the Borough first, there would be a loss from license fees alone of L 1,145, 145 be sides a small amount usually obtained for transfers conditional licenses and so on for which say LlO and this hi ing it up to LI 155, Now sir, I have it on the bestauthority that a 4d rate on the unimproved value, that is the present rate, produces some LI4OO to LISOO ; so that it is not difficult " to see that at least an additional 3d rate w«uld be necessary to make up this loss. .No* is this all. You must remember th>it the gas supply is the property of the Borough, and you must admit that the hotel keepers are the largest consumers of gas. Exactly what difference it would make I cannot say, but there is no doubt that it would be considerable and that the price of gas would have to be raised to the other consumers. So that this is the first benefit Aveio Greymouth would receive from prohibition, increased rates nearly double rates in fact and _ dearer gas. Put it in another way, the population of the Borough is 3,745, say that a quarter of these are ratepayers and that is a very fair estimate, but say a

quarter that gives us 937 who \vil : have to pay this LI 155, this gives an average ot nearly LI 5s a head and this will not be for one year or two, but for ever, for this LI 155 is a permanent loss to the Borough. Now, with regard to the county it is not necessary to say much. The balance sheet was published the other day and no doubt most of you saw it. If not, I may say that the loss of revenue would amount to L 774. Add this to the LI 155 and we find the total loss from license fees alone in the Borough and County would amount to L 1929. Well we only claimed a loss of LISOO, so that I donot consider it necessary t'> say another word on this point, and I •hink ray opponent will have his work cut out to disprove my figures. Now this is serious enough in all conscience but we are not yet done. We have still to deal with the question of taxation and see how much more the Prohibitionist proposes to take out of our pockets. If we turn to p 174 of the Official Year Book for 1902 we find i hat the custom's duties on spiritn for 1901 amounted to L 478,816, on wine L 35,864, on ale and besrLlß,B49, and the excise duty on beer to L 59,185, the total reaching the respectable figure of L 622.714. Now I do not assert that the carrying of No License throughout the colony would mean the permanent loss of the whole of this enormous sum, I am neither foolish enough nor Jishonesb enough to raak< any such assertion, but I do claim that, for the first year or two the whole o ; it would be lost to the colony and a very large proportion of it would be permanently lost. How much, it i of course impossible to say or eveiestimate. The excise duty of L 89,185 would of course be gone for ever as the breweries would be closed d«wa, and owing to the difficulty and inconvenience of importing the small amount of liquor equired for personal consumption, I im afraid the customs iiuty would be very small. You understand ©f course chat every man will have to import just what he wants for his own perso lal requirements as any combination to import liquor would be an infliction if the law and the inconvenience of •his course would cause the amount so imported to be very small. I do not mean to say that there will be no liquor consumed under 'No License' but I am atraid a small percentage of it will pay duty, and I will deal with this when I come to sly grog selling. It ia as I have said impossible to say exactly what the permanent loss of revenue Avould be probably h a million would be "well within the mark. But even if only a quarter of a million, even if it were only the excise <)uty of L 89,185, how is it geing to be made up. Well, in my opinion, and I think ia the opinion of every reasonable man, there is only one way and that is by increasing the taxation. If there is any otker way aud No License should by a miracle become universal in New Zealand I am sure the unfortunateMtnisterof Finance for the time being will be grateful 'to Mr Trestrailj if he will give him his assistance in meeting a deficit without increasing the taxation. N« doubt when his turn conies to speak Mr Irestrail will give us his remedy, and I shall be glad to hear it, but I hope far his own sake it will not be so fallacious as the remedy suggested by that gentleman whose name was so familiar to us, but whose presence was so sadly missed at the last election, who had the temerity to oppose not only our chairman but eventhePiernier. I mean of course, M>' Isitt. In the Review of Reviews for M*y last under the rather significant heading of "Fallacious Arguments" Mr Isitt said "Though evm-y imaginable objection was raised before the last poll the election was really fought to the cry of 'Liberty of the Subject* 'what about the Revenue. Whether this will be the case now remains te be seen. As long as there are people who cc no financial loss in our drink filled prisons and hospitals and asylums, poople to whom our drink bill spells na'.ional prosperity, as leng as there are p<v>ple who feel mo share of responsibility ia the inevitable results of the traffic which they license, so long will the cry of the 'Revenue' be raided, but it may be hoped that fewer and fewer p?ople wil* be found to give heed to it at each succe-ding poll." So this is the remedy ; c-ury 'No License' and we can do away with gaols, hospitals and asylums. Passing by for the menoent the absurdity of such a contention with which 1 will deal later and admitting for arguments that it is really sound, let us see how it affects the financial question and what do we find. We find that the total revenue derived from liquor is L 676,331 that is from the customs and excise duties I quoted to you just now, and a sum of L 53,617 derived from license fees and tint this sum not only pays the whole of the judicial and legal expenses of the colony including the maintenance of prisons, the police force and the various courts, the who'e of the expendi'ure on hospitals and charitable aid and on the asylums throughout ' the colony, it not only pays for all these but it leaves over a sum of L 271,280 for other purposes. The exact figures expended on these things (I take them from the Year Book page 452) are judicial and legalL2s4,6Bo hospitals, and charitable aidL9(3,646 and asylums L 59,725, and these added together amount to L 405,051, deduct this from the liquor

revenue of L67G,331 ami you get as I have said left over a sum oi: L 271,280. Now what does this mean ? It mean that if every criminal, every lunatic, every man requiring charitable aid, every man requiring hospital treatment owed his unhappy state to drink, I and drink alone, if every Court in the land every gaol and every police constable are required wholly and solely because of the s*le of alcholic drink and I don't think even Mr Isitb or Mr Trestrail will go as far as that, b-it even if it were so • the revenue derived from that sale, not only pays for their maintenance, but leaves a sum of considnrably over a quarter of a million far the general finances of the colony. So that adopting Mr Isitt/s argument if he can shew that prohibition would abolish all crime, all lunacy, all poverty and all ailments requiring hospital treatment, there would still be a financial loss to the .colony of L 2 71,000. How ii this to be made up ? The only way I can s°e is by increased tax « tion and unlessMr Trestrail can t,kow me that I am wrong, I assert that I have proved that prohibition msans increased taxation. I hope I Wave not wearied you with all these figures, but they are very important, as showing that it is no light thing, bub a very serious thing for the finances of ihe colony if you vote an 1 sincere'y hope you never will vote for "No License." ' I I come now to the allegation tk t prohibition means loss of employmen entailing serious hardship to scores oi! -amities in this district, and Ido no* ; hink that I shall have any difficulty m proving this charg« up to the hilt. Tarn of course unable to give exact figures for the district for none are ivailable so far as I know, but I can the figures for the col©ny. On page 317 of the Year Bo©k we find that tbe number of persons employed in the colony in hotels and breweries and so on are 6,766 and the total number of licenses is given as 1522 *o that roughly there are 4|- persons employed tor each license Now lam informed that in this c ecfcoral district there are 81 licenses, s» that taking this average there will be 364 people in this district a lone thrown out of employment. You wh* know the district much better than I do will probably consider this a ver< moderate estimite, bub it is serious enough when you consider that loss of employment to 364 people means hardship and suffe -ing to over 1000 souls or 110 th of tbe p -pulation ot the district which is about 10 200. I have so much ground to cover that I cannot at preseut do more than pve sent the facts to you as they are, and I will leave it till later on in the evening to deal with the rights and wrongs of the case. I have given yon figures that shew on a very f.iir reckoning tha f i we are well within the ■nark in saying that prohibition means seri«us hardship to scores in the dis tricb, and there for the present I will leave ib without comment except io say that I hope Mr TresLrail has some feasible scheme for emptying those who suffer, for if he has net then I c-m only regard his polcy as one of very •ioubtful h mesby. I come now to the charge that prohibition means social and commercial stagnation, (I have already dealt with the subject of increased taxation) sly grog selling and a multitude of evils. With regard to commercial stagnation I do not think our manifesto goes far enough. Itmeans more than stagnation, it means depression. It is almost im possible to estimate the effect it would have on the commerce of the colony ]ca | dial to the value of over 3 millions would be involve I (Year Book p 317) which alone could not fail to produce commercial depsession. There are 30,831 acres under barley producing over a million busnels which wouM be wasted (p 383) there are 844 acres in tke "Nelson district under hops which would be wasted, and this with the loss of revenue from the importation of hops and sugar and other things used in tbe brewing industry would, coming -ill at once, create . a state of affairs in the colony absolutely undreamt of. However I have not to deal with that at present, but rather with what has been proved by experience. Now prohibition is no new thing. Ib is not an experiment we are asked to adept which may or may not turn out wnll. It has already been tried even in this colony and I have no hesitation in saving th*t wherever and whenever it has been tried ib has proved a failure. It has meant social and commercial stagnation sly grog selliog and a multitude of evils. This is true of the United States of America, of Canada, and here at home of Clutha. Now as to the United States we have fortunately not only statistics which are beyond dispute, but we have the result of the investigations of Messrs Rowntree and Sher well, themselves temperance reformers, into the working of prohibition in America which they have embodied in their work " The Temperance problem andsocial reform." Taking the statistics first we find that out of 16 states that adopted prohibition iio less than eleven have seen the error of their way and have returned to the paths of righteousness and licenses, and only 5 are left in the state of prohibition, and darkness. Now in these five states at the time they adopted prohibition the average density of population per sq. mile waa 16 in 1890 it had increased to 24andin 5 of the, states bhat gave up prohibition the average density was 13 and in 1890 ifc had increased to 46. Paupers in the prohibition sbates

ie^reased "15 per 1000 of the popu lation in the non-prohibition states they decreased -26. In 1890 the number )f lunatics and idiots per 1000 was 3-54 in the prohibition states as against 3-07 in the, nonprohibition, and yet Mr Isitt says that, •rohibition will empty our lunatic asylums. Again in Portland, the chief city of the prohibition state of Maine, in 1899 the number of arrests for drunkenness was 43 per 1000, in New York they were 13, in New Zealand they were 7. So we find that prohibition not only does not diminish poverty and insanity, but it actually . ppears to increase drunkenness. And yet Mr Isitt talks of empty ingaurdrink rilled gaols, asylums and hospitals. Why if piohibition ever is carried here we had better start enlarging thosn public Institutions at Hokitika without delay. Moreover, if we are to believe Messrs ßowntree and Sherwell, P'ohibition does not prohibit, but I will deal with that later on. At present I think I have proved that in \merica at least, prohibition has meant socialand commercial stagnation for the increase of population is a good index to the commercial prosperity of a state. But it is a far cry to America so let us look nearer home for a moment to Clutba. As to the social and commercial ( stagnation at Clutha that is easily demonstrated. Some of you no doubt saw just before the election a manifesto signed by the Mayor and Town clerk of Balclutha, supported by a few ministers and storekeepers in the town. It is an instructive document, and one to which I shall refer to at some length later on, just now I shall confine myself to the financial part of it. It reads as follows: — "Speaking of Balclutha with which we are most familiar the place has never shewn such signs of prosperity as at the present time. For instance during the last twelve months improvements within the Borough amount to the respectable sum of LIO,OOO. This, we acknowledge, was an exceptional year, though for years past the town has been making steady progress. With a population of about 1100 such prosperity will cornp ire very favourably we are sure with any town of equal population under license. The borough finances too Hre n a thoroughly sound and satisfactory state the old shilling rate being still in operation." That is what the Mayor .nd Town Clerk of Balclutha would have us believe t>ut they must have forgotten that their figuies are open to us and we will see how far their statements aye justified. In 1893 the poßuyaiion of Bilclutha _was 900 and its rateable Vcilue was LSIS4 in 1892 its population was 1017 and its rateable value w<s L 5252. So that this town which has been we are told teadily prospering for years past has in 9 years increased 117 in population, and L6B in rateable value. Where is that Ll0,000? And now as they challenge comparison they nhall have it and I will take against them not one, but three neigebouring towns that ate not under the prohibition curse. Milton, Kaitangata, and Gore. Milton in the same pe> io t has increased in population 342 in rateable value, L 1326 Kait-angata has increased in f iopul*tion 317 and in rateable value by L 5.318. At this point the time period expired and Mr Smith ivsumed his seat. During the speech which was exceilently delivered he was frequently applauded, and at its conclusion was cheered again and again. The Rev Mr Trest-ail, who was also accorded a most hearty andeuthusiastic reception then addressed the audience saying:— j Ladies and Gentlemen, — You are | well aware that I am ttie chosen agent | of the prohibition party to expose the exaggerated manifesto of the L. V. Association published in the Grey Riven AitGDSof N«»v 25th last. Mr T M Smith is the chosen agent of the L. V. A. to substantiate the said manifesto. You have heard Mr Smith's first address. Now let us examine the said manifesto word by word. "Liberty". There is much talk about deprivation of liberty. Remember, we are in form of Government, a Democracy; but democracy is and must be a failure if men want Natural liberty, i.e. liberty to do as one likes. Civil liberty allows man only such freedom as is in the best interests of the community in genrral. Democracy gives to every voter Royal and Sovereign power, which is to be used by the subject or elector in the place of absolute monarchical power. This power must be used for the general good. Now every law we make is opposed to the vested interests of a few ; some lawn to the interests of nearly one half of the people — yet who talks of robbing men of their liberty 1 We make a road to Brunner, and thus deprive the old barg"-men of their mode of living. We then make a railway and run off the teamster, j What about the liberty of the Subject? We m «ke a law prohibiting the importation and smoking of opium, etc. What ab jut the liberty of the Subject? By the way — Does opium degrade or kill half as many people as alcohol? We prohibit Bill Sykes from (aking what isn't his'en ; yet who talks of the Liberty of the subject but' Bill. You may want firewood, but yon must not cut down our Royal Oaks. Yet this is the freest country under heaven The Lifcsrty of the Liquor Traders fosters an intemperance of which the

liquor-selling msmbe s of the B iish ilova' Commission on Licensing Laws (1899) themselves declared :— "lt is undeniably a gigantic evil, and hardly any sacrifics would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation." The Liberty that the moderate drinker claims can only ba bought with the ruin of hom e s, tin degradation of manhood, and the torture of childhood. This cry of Liberty is the merest travesty of words and an insuli | to man's common sense. This is thin varnish. Sr-lf-interest would make license into liberty. "Independence." What Independence has to do with this question one finds it hard to guess ; save that the Drink Vendors claim the right to do as they like. Independence is approached m st nearly by the savage who roams the forest alone. Men are interdependent, and none were ever mo>e so than we in our democracy. 'No man liveih unto himself ; hence we have to defend the weak, and provide crutches for the lime. All our law nuking must be in the best interests of the many, especially the weak. This cry of ia the fretting of a pampered and spoiled child grown to man's bulk, but essentially selfish. "Prosperity." If this does not mean that the opeu bar system, such as we now have, spells Prosperity ; then it has no meaning us here used. I fear our friends will find it very hard to prove that the existing drink traffic makes for prosperity. Prosperity depend'son two things, viz. 1. The wise direction of energy. 2. The wise use, or spending of energy's product. Surely energy is most wisely duected that will enable it to produce the greatest amount of remuneration in the form of producing most einploj'ment and most money. Now, the making and sale of intoxicating clriuks employs least labour of all trades : and distributeslessin profits to the working community than any other trade. Let me support these statements by looking at our New Zealand Official Year Bojk for 1902. The whole drink trade of the colony employs le3s than 4,000 pe-sons. I am allowing for all but the servants in hotels who cm be no more reckoned as in the trade than servants in non licensed boarding houses. Our drink bill for 1901 was in r-mnd numbers, L 2,900,000. Tiitis every person employed in the traffic receives an average of L 725 per year. Now the dairy produce exported amounted io LI, 17 3,216 — not nearly one half of the drink Bill, but it found employment for over 4 times as many persons. That is dairying employs 8 to las against drink ; and mark this, drink 2 to 1 as to death rate among its workers. Then the dairy produce kills non^-, but drink kills over 1,000 persons annually in New Zealand, yet the vendors of drink cry "Prosperity". The value of the coal at the pit's mouth raised lasf. yen 1 in New Zeaisind was L3G8,291 — nob one-seventh cf the money spent on drink, yet it found employment for more than 3-5 of the number «f men employed in the drink traffic. If the sune value of co*l had to be raised it would find employment for 19,550 persons, hence the loss of employment of 15,550. Yet they cry Prosperity. The wheat produced whs valued at L 708,000, and this found work for 8,000 persons. The amount ©f wheat to the value of our Drink Bill would employ 23,000 ; loss of 'abour 19,000. Does this make for Prosperity ? If you take the figures and go through every trade and vocation you will find the same appalling difference utterly condemning the drink traffic on the point of economies. Less of r«venue locally. Over LISOO annually. Now mark the over LISOO. The actual profit to our town finances is L 1,040, 040 per year. But is through the hotel the best way to pass on revenue, or to collect it? What say you? Let us examine and see. There are 22 hotels and 4 bottlelicenses in this town. Siy equal to 20. The average license costs r,he colony L 1665 annually. lam sure no one here will deny that the Grey psople spend up to the average amount. Then these 2.6 hotels cost us L 43,290 annually. | That is we spend L 43,290 in order for them to pay rates of L 1,040., 040. Suppose this amount were spent in other good-, surely the business people would be far better able to pay this extra of L 1,040, 040 than they can now pay the present rates. Let us see. Supposing our population to be 4,000 (at the last census it was 3,745). This is LlO 16s 5d per head. But it would only re^ quire 5s 2d per head to pay the LIO4O. That would leave us a profit of LlO 11s 3d or L 52 16s 3d per family of 5 as Xmas box. Yet they tell us our taxes will be heavier if we have prohibition. I suppose you men would net mind that heavier tax that gave you an annual Xmas box of L 52 16s 3d? I h*ve made very careful enquiries in ray travels, and I have travelled more than most of you, from men in business as to the amount they 10-ie through the drink traffic. It has varied from 3to 7 percent. Let us be charitable and place it at 4 per cent. Supposing each person spends an average of L2O annually. Tuafc is by no means a big average here in Greymouth. On this basis we spend LBo,oo annually in various commodities. ThatisL3,2oo per year of bad debt dueto drink in this town. That would pay our L 1,040, 040 lo^s of revenue, and give us L 2,160 to keep thej children of poor worn-out and turned-adrift publicans. So you see

it would pay the business people of this town to guarantee the Municipal Council 1.1,500 a year if prohibition were passed. If you doubt, my estimate and make it 2 per cent, then you have L 1.600 left to pay L 1,040 the"socalled over L 1,500., 500. "A Policeman's Testimony." Cipfcaiu Nofct-Bowei, who ha^i been appointed city commissioner of police, and served 20 years as chi«f constable of Liverpool, has given his help and influence to temperance and other movements for the elevation* of the poorer classes. He made a very remarkable statement on on-< occision, say.s the London Daily News with reference to the appalling amount of Saturday night drinking in Liverpool. It was to the effect that if the money spent in the publiohouses on tbafc single evening of the week were only spent on the necessaries of life, the ordinary stocks of the grocers and bakers and provision dealers in the city would not be able to supply fche demands that would be made upon them. This indicates something of the amount of starvation that is occasioned by the vice of intemperance, ! according to the experience of a man who, from the position he has held, is well able to form an accurate opinion on the matter. This clipping proves beyond doubt the enormous loss to business caused through the Drink Traffic. This increase of tr.ide would more than make up for all loss of revenue. This is just what has happened in every part of the Clutha. Mr D Stewart, barrister, solicitor, and Mayor of Balclutha, who has lived in the Clutha about thirteen years, speaking in the hall on July 11, 1899, contrasted the present and the past, and said : — "Twelve years ago all the storekeeping business of the town was carried on in four stores, but business was so bad that only two of the stores survived insolvent circumstances and the da}' 3of the liquor rule. "Now ten stores are carrying on profitable business. Then there were only two stock and station agents : now there are six. Two blacksmiths then ; six now. Two bakers then ; three now. Two bootmakers in those days ; four in these. A.nd so on. "The Liquor Party had entire control of the borough's affairs for fifteen years, and the whole of the time the town had remained absolutely stagnant. Hear that! The money was spent in such a way as to find its way as speedily as possible into the publicans' tills. The Licensing Committees were composed of 'Tammany's' nominees, with the result that within the borough the licensing laws were practically a dead letter. Educational and other public interests were mismanaged or neglected. We heir that licensed houses bring prosperity, but the facts aye all the other way." Similar testimo ay could be given by others if one had spice; and the Siime is true of the Prohibition states of the United States of America. "Loss of employment, entailing serious hardships to scores of families in this district!" What does this mean] Who are these families'' If it means people outside the hotelkeepers, then I have already proved that the money spent in drink enormously decreases labour, hence it is utterly untrue. I presume, therefore, that it refers to those |in the trade. Now there are 73 hotels in this electorate and licensing district (78 in the old electorate). Who will dare say to any of these you could not get a living at anything else ? Mind your eye if you do. But suppose there are 10 such men. What about j scores ? Scores cannot be less that 40. Dear me, just fancy, more than half of these publicans going into our Old Man's Depot (the hospital). Well there are more than that number there now, sent there by th 6 trade. I s iy suppose there are 10 such families or men who could not get an hoaest living for their families outstf c of the trade, then the question comes whether it will not bs better for these 10 families to suffer the loss of part of their income — for ouly part comes froni the drink— than for over 50 families to be reduced to poverty, another 50 to lose quite half of their income, and another 100 to lose one quarter of their income. That is shall 10 or 200 families suffer ? Shall 10 families suffer for, at most, 10 years, or 200 families go on suffering endlessly ? Let every sane man in this house answer to himself which of these two alternatives is the mostpreferab'e. Meu shall a few suffer, if suffering is necessary, and I doubt that; or shall themaDy g© en in endless suffering just to keep this cursed traffic going. Answer to your God here ! You will have to aaswer some day. Be men and answer at the next election. "Expedience proves that Prohibition means socul and commercial stagnation, increased taxes, sly grog selling, and a multitude of evils." — 'Experience proves.' Whose experience and where 1 ? We have abundant evidence of the ruin caused by drink, but we have no evidence from any experience of prohibition causing either. The Britis i nation has only had one experience of prohibition and that has proved a success. Clutha has proved a success in S[»iti of an apathetic Government, aud all the forces of the drink party to hinder its success. Had Clutha had a fair trial she would, doubtless, have been a much greater success. They talk of experience. . Where does it come from ? Experience has proved to all nations, that, thus far, the

drink traffic is uncontrolable. a d everywhere the nations are suffering unutterable misery and lOSS through its pernicious influence. Every civijised nation on earth to-day is trying." to throttle it as a recognised evil, as a ruinous traffic. Whenever prohibition has been tried it has proved to be an unqualified succ ss. The success being in proportion to the enforcement of the law. In New Zealand we intend to enforce the hw ful.ty. hence we 'are c^rtdn, from ex pc; iencealready obtained that, prohibition is to be a glorious success. '•'Social Stagnation." The stagnation of society. Seciety will come to.-i standstill ; and, like stagnant water produce all manner of evil. Now it is experience proves this. Can Mr S nith bring one single proof of social stagnation following prohibition ? The present system certainly ' gives .tbundint proof of social-stag-nation to society and tens of thousands of homes, and every man here km>.vs that. It is daily demonstrated, and every one knows that what is demonstrated ueds no' argument to prove. J. -■ This is the first time I have ever heard or read of abstinence fr'em strong drink bringing social stagnation. It is the most brazen effrontery I "have ever met. A m«re assertion without a shadow of evidence to substantiate it. This is equal to saying that those who do not drink a y e stagnating i. c. naming society ; and those who drink are its elevators and purifiers. But you all know that such talk is \m J ' qualified bunkum. The homes of poverty in 8 out of 10 cases are the horn j s of drunkards : — Drunkards manufactured by our present open bar system. Men who never would' have become such but for our open mantraps. Hear what Lord Roseberry says ; and he is neither a prohibitionist nor an abstainer. Speaking to the Birmingham Liberals in 1893 he said 'I am not a fanatic on Temperance reform. I am, I hope, a sensible and level -minded politician on that and all other subjects. But I caariot buc be struck with the pathetic urgency with which the appeals for dealing with this question conies from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and though I am not a fanatic on this question, I view the uncontrolled condition of our liquor traffic as a serious danger for two reasons. In the first place, no one can deny that there is a great deal too much drinking in thiscountry,' (That was Birmingham not Greymouth) "and that much of the crime, and much of the pauperism, and almost all the degradation prevalent in this country are attribu'ableto drink." That's Roseberry, not the L. T. A. of Grey or Smith. "Commercial Stagnation." The ruin of trade and our commerce. How does it sound • Stop drinking when you are not thirsty ; and don't drink what increases thirst ; and you will bring about commercial stagnation. Now that's too funny even for a thirsty seller. Now nothing helps to bring commercial stagnation so fast as want of employment and low wages ;]the latter being generally the result of ( the former. No trade is so detrimental to the production of labour as the drink traffic. I have proved this by the figures ,i and facts already quote-! ; but let me give a few mere. Out of ev.ivry Ll,ooo spent in various products, says Messrs Burt and Came of the British Parliament, The following are the amonnts received by labor and capital respect tively. These figure* have been leng before the public in print, but no . attempt has been made to disprovo them. They are as follows. — .

There you see a L3OO on shoes, th, I lowest of the other products, and L72f. I on implements and machinery tlu I highest. Thus a man making LI,OOO I worth of shoes would receive L37r wages. On . LI, OOO worth ofimple ments and machinery ,Lj3oo, but o:< LI, OOO worth of alcoholic drinks L 7 On the first labor loses L3OO. On tl second L 725. The average loss i>« LI, OOO on all the goods named ab.ov I would be about LSBO. Now apply I these figuivs to our Drink Bill. To I make tbe L 2,900,000 of drink sold I would only cost in wages L217,500^ But on the avefage of the goods nanv above, the wages would be Ll,6Ss' Thus on our drink b'll the annua/V^H to labor is L 1,464,500.. But if I whole were spent in Machinery annual gain co labour is L 1,785,, 785, To make this drink would find^ ployment for 10,570 persons at the i^^| of L2OO per year, But to make average of goods named would I^^| employment for 8,420 persons. Tl^^H , it will be seen that our colony loses ' wagvs L 1,464,500, 464,500 and in the empl i ment of labour 7,333. As a matter fact only 680 persons were employ in makim* and delivering drink in Ne^H Zealand last year, just over half of n:^B estimate, malting the case much wor^^H th*n the above figures show. ThuH the actual 10-s in men employed w- H 7,740, and of wages , L 1,548,000. . } r i,W talk of commercial stagnation' in ' 'theH face of these figures is simply an insuitß co the common sense of every" worker ■ in- New Zealand. But let us look I abroad, and the facts .are even , worse. ■ The Caledonian distillery of Eclinburgliß

produces L 1,500,000, 500,000 worth of drink annually, and they employ 150 men. d< The Atlas iron alnd steel works of ts Sheffield produce about L 750.000 G worth per year. Just half of the dis- s« tillery's output, yet it employ 3 4,000 T hands; that would be 8,000 for the si same output as the distillery : a loss of, B 7,850 wage earners. w The Lord Mayor of York when ad- *» dressing a mass meeting of labourers said:— "Seeyonder brewery, the capital C invelved there is L 1,500,000, and tl yet it only employs 600 men. If that d amount were involved in cotton «nd a woollen manufactory it would employ b 15,000. A lossof 14,400 men employed, ii yet they talk^of com«iercialstagn:ition. t I have been unable to find the capital d involved in biewerys in New Zealand, v or I would astonish you with the n amount of commercial stagnation they v bring t* cur colony. I hope however, ( to get it later, and when I publish this debate I will give you the figures. L Oar Year Book gives the capital I value of Public Houses in New Zen- 8 land as L 3,093,923. There are 1526 . v houses. Allowing two to sell drink in i s each house, this is ample as an ] average. That is 3,052 persons. Now j { ab the rate given above that amount j a of capital should find employment for ; "" 10,313 persons, a loss of 7,261 persons j < employed annually. The L 43.290 , spent "in Greymouth annually in the ] 26 licensed places finds employment for i i 52 persons. Two persons to s-U drink i for each license. But this should find ; employment for 216 persons a loss of 164 persons employed at L2OO annually. Yet they talk of commercial stagnation. It ia idle talk, utterly false assertion that every man should be utterly ashamed of. As a conclusion of this paragraph let me quote from the report of the committee of the Lower House of Convocation of the province of Canterbury, England. "From an extensive and minute enquiry prosecuted by your committee throughout the workhouses of the country as well as from other authenticated statements it can be shown that an enormous proportion of the pauperism which is felt to ibe a burden and discouragement by the industrious and sober members of the community, and has such a degrading and demoralising effect upon most recipients of parochial relief, is .the direct and common product of intemperance. It appears, indeed, that at least seventy-five per cent of the occupants of our workhouses, and a large proportion of those receiving outdoor pay, have become pensioners on the public, directly or indirectly, through drunkenness, and the improvidence and absence of self-respect which this pestilent vice is known to engender and perpetuate. The loss of strength and weilth to the country, the increase of taxation, the deterioration of national character thus produced, it is at once humiliating and irritating to contemplate." This enquiry extended to 112 English workhouses. Yet they talk of social and commercial stagnation. "Increased Taxation." Can my opponents show me one case in which prohibition caused increased taxation 1 Mere especially give an instance .where experience proved prohibition to have fo resulted ? He certainly has not done so in Balclutha. This has most ' emphatically been denied by the Mayor and Town Clerk of Clutha. They say no increase of taxes has been necessary, and that the Borough finances were never in a better stite. Tins is in accord with the following 1 figures. The capital value of land and "improvements in the county in 1891 'was LI, 151,046. In 1902 it w,.s L 1,235,933 an increase of L 87,887. An increase of over 8 thousand per year. In the Borough of Balclutln { in IS9I it was L 53,210. In 1902 ,L 77,009 an increase of L 23.899, :n?arly doubling its value in 10 years' u&der prohibition. Now thw is the only experience New Zealand has had "What does it prtove? Certainly not the necessity for increased taxation. In no state or town of all the United States of America has the opponents of prohibition evor attempted to prove that it has brought about financial loss to the community or the need for increased taxation. Can Mr Smith or the Greymoutti L.V. A . give one single instance proving their rash statement that prohibition made increased'taxation necessary 1- If not they should withdraw such an assertion, surely founded on presumption and not oh I ' fact or experience. Surely this is a I ' question where expert evidence might ft be 'given. Let us hear the evidence HL of some of them. Sir Robert Giffen in 1882 :— "These two sums to fifty miliion pound?, was quite large enough to justify, an economic view, all the complaints the evils of intemperance, and opinion that there would be an gain to the country it' the evil could be removed." (Sta'is. 1882). ,; The Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1834 estimated — "The mere pecuniary loss to the nation is short of L 50,000,000 sterling annum, from the evils of the drink Mr Dudley Baxter, whose fright to be heard on all questions of B ■; Imperial finance none can doubt said in H f 1870 : "Takeaway excessive temptation H. and you will greafcely reduce excessive mi drinking. No one could lament a ■/ deficit in the taxes on alcohol caused I by such a ineisure. On the oontrary I it would, it would be most desirable in I the true iuterests of the nation. I (Taxation of United K. p 149).

Mr Glastone said in replying to a M depntation of brewers that a proposed is tax on malt Would effect the revenue, is Gentlemen, you in ed not give .your cv selves any trouble about the revenue. h( The question of revenue must never oi siand in the way of needed reforms, ai Besides, with a &ober population, not si wasting their earnings, I shall know li where to obtain a revenue." ti Sir Stafford Northcote said in the 2< Commons on April 16th, 1874, if c< the people became sober and gave up al drink: "I venture to say that the e 1 amount of wealth such a change would ai bring to the tia ion would utterly th-ow p into the shade the amount of revenue i that is now derived from the spirit 3 duty We should find in fi various ways that the Exchequer would si not suffer "from the losses which ,it s< might sustain in that direction", ii (Hansard Debates). t The Right Hon Joseph Chamber- '; lain said, in a speech at Shefield : — 'lf '' I could destroy to-morrow the dsire for c | strong drink in the peop'eof England, d : what changes would we see? We should f ! see our taxes removed by millions ster- v ling. We should see more lives paved ' jin twelve months than are consume lin f ia ceutmy of bitter and sivagewar! ' IWe should see our goals and workhouses ) I empty. You have heard these expects. Are they to be accepted as the s highest authorities, or would you 1 i rather accept the testimony of the - Greymouth L. V. A. and my friend Mr Smith % ( If the amount spent annually on the ( common necessities of lite the consuraers would pay over L 660,000 in duties, which is more than the whole ; of the revenue from drink. Hence there would be need of less not more , taxation. j At this point the Chairman stated I the time limit had expired, and the Rev gentleman ie-uraed his seat amid thunders of applause. Mr Smith, who on rising to reply, received an ova 1 ion said: — But after all Balclutha has progressed if only JL6B in 9 years that is ' moae than can be said of the other 1 prohibition towns, Tapanui amel Clin--1 ton winch have decaeased in both pepulation and value and if we take the three Clutha towns together we 1 find that under no license they have ' decreased in population by 82, and in ' rateable value by L 822, while in the 1 same period, and side by side with th*m ■ the three Mataura towns un ler license ' have increased in population 1359 and ' in rateable value LB IOO. Is another < word necessary to prove the truth of " our alleg ition that prohibition means ' social and commercial stagnation. And \ now lam glad to say that I "have nearly %: done with figures and statistics. Ido > not for one moment pretond to have ' nearly covered the ground bub for " that you must blame the deck y and not me as thore are other ' very important matters I must touch ' on before I sit down. I think I have I proved to you the main point* in our manifesto. I have proved that if f prohibition carries, it will mean a loss 1 of revenue locally and an increase in • taxation,jloss of employment, and hatd--3 ships to' scores i» the district and 1 that it raeans social and commercial b stagmation and all I have mow to deal b with is sly grog selling, the multitude i of evils and the interference with our • liberty and independence. So far I 3 have dealt with the financial aspect 1 of prohibition in the short time left to • mo I will deal with it in its moral or ' rather immoral aspect. As te sly grog • selling I have already said that prohibition does not exhibit, and sly grog • selling abounds wherever prohibition • exists. It is known to exist largely r in Clutha just as it exists in every 1 obher prohibition state in the world, and I will prove it out of the mouths »' of the prohibitionists themselves. s 1 Messrs Rowntree and Sherwell who ! are tempeiatice advocates say of c America "It is, however, sometimesk nrged that even if the prohibitory law V i has not succeeded in suppressing the c I sale of liquor it has at least driven j the traffic into holes and corners, and '" out of the way places, and made it a k disreputable and criminal traffic." 0 What a state of affairs to urge as a '' cause for gratitude and thankfulness. r The prohibitionists in America have ft put down a legitimate business which was carried on openly under license of : " the law and have raised up in its place a hole and corner traffic that fears the V light of day, sind I have no hesitation a in saying that 100 badly managed a h >tels are less disastrous in their effects k than I sly 'grog shop. Messrs Rowntree c and Slier wellevidently see this for th^m n selves for they ge on to say, "It is 18 questionable, however, if the gain is so ? > great from a moral point of view as it '» is sometimes supposed to be. For ;s apart, from its illicit and underground d character it appears to offer peculiar v temptations to the young, and one c pfiect is to degrade the traftic as to 3> create a lower class of dealers whose methods are not only uttarly une scrupulous but are fraught with grave c danger to the moral consciousness of s the community." Now there are no » ! doubt many amongst you here to- * ! night who voted '.No License' at the c j la°t election I hope there are »f : few who will be so foolish and worse n ; thanfoolishas todosD again, but before n j you do vote again just think of the c words of these two apostles of tempera ance that prohibi. ion creates a traffic d that "offers a peculiar temptation to the y young and is fraught with grave n danger to the moral consciousness of '• the community." The Rev Mr Hack a congregational minister in Portland

Maine said in a public se mon "What ' cc is the situation here in our city ' Ib jal is ouo ihab shames you an I me and ' lc every decent man :md woman to whom a home is s-icrod, axl reputation, lion- ft our, and life are dear things. Th-re b are today probably more grog kitchens, h sly urog shops and stores selling a liquor than ever be'ore. A conserva- f< tive estimate has pat the number at U 200 but lam coming to theappalinsj a conviction that that number is only si about half large enough. It is clearly I evident that more young men and boys v are drinking than in the pasb. A re- g. porter 'of one of our pipers was walk ing down South street wh-n he saw 3 boys and a girl taking frequent swigs from a can such as housewives usuilly send to the corner grocery for kerosene. The bearers of these vesseli are invariably children win are not averse to taki-'g from the can< in transit. No queftions «re asked of these little ones. This means a generation educated in lawlessness, the breaking down of the safeguards that make life, home, and society possible. Ia the words of Roosevelt 'the worst possible lesson to teach any citizen is contempt for law.'" That is the ondition of thin us in a prohibition state and I ask you, any one of you, will you by your vote become a party to introducing such a state of affairs into New Zealand? Ah, but you say "this is America, tell us about Clutha?" Well, are things a y better in Clutha I I hop^ so, but I >»m doubtful. Of course Clutha is an agricultural district an<l there are no large cities as there are in Maine, so things are possibly not so appalling, but that they are bal no man can deubt. Mi' Ernest D'Esterre -vriiing in the Review of Reviews says, "The Clutha [ I District where prohibition has been s carried, is pointed out as a bright and I shining example of the benefits of prohibition but as there are almost monthly convictions for sly gi'og ' selling there, the benefits are of a somewhat doubtful character and we - have the statement of the Bishop of 3 New York and other eminent thinkers '" that prohibition is a fraud and a - failure as where laws have been en--1 acted absolutely pi\>hibi'ive of the sale 3 of liquors a race of hypociites and 3 frauds has taen created." Now Mr i D'Esterre is a gentleman who is con--1 nected with the "Otago Public-hoise 3 Trust Association", an association 1 which aims at bringing the liquor trade 3 of Dunedin under one central control I and appointing managers who will v have no interest in unduly pushing 'he £ sale of liquor and as such of; course, he s is in a position to know as much a^ anyone about the state of Clutha and f that is his deliberate opinion, that J there are almost monthly convictions c for sly grog selling and that the II benefits of prohibiton are of a doubtful * character. So much for sly grog l * selling, 1 You remember that manifesto signeil s hy the Mayor and Town Clerk of Bal- »" c'utha that I quoted to you a while ■f ago. Listen to another extract ! "The s most libellous charge made against us ft is that in connection with v\y grog I- selling which we are toU is rampant. 1 We do not hesitate to say that this -1 has been grossly exaggerated." You •1 see they cannot deny that it exists, s bub they say it is exaggerated, '' and then they go on to say I "With strict police supervision." Why t I thought prohibition was .aoing to o abolish the police — another cherished i* idol gone "With strict police snperg vision what sly grog selling we have is •- kopt very much in the oackground and g is in no sense the flagrant thing our n traducers assert. It is possible only y to men prepared to stoop to back door y ways of procuring drink." Isn't that 1> exactly what Messrs Rowntree and a Shenvoll said of America, but tkey 3- were longer sighted than our Clutha o friends, an"! saw that such a condition •f of affairs offered a peculiar temptation !S' to the young, and was fraught with w grave dangers to the moral conscious--ie ness of the community. If .such a n state of affairs is likely, I will not s-iv j d likely if it is even possible that such a a state of affairs may be brought about in this colouy of ours, don't we incur a a terrible responsibility in voting "No s. License'^ Experience everywhere r e shows that prohibi ion has the effect h of setting up a pernicious secret tradp, >f and ib is no excuse for you to say you se did not know it, and you voted in the is hope it would <'o good. You ought n to have known it the facts I have sd given jou to night are open to every bs enquirer, and no man or women has a )e right to vote foradrastic change in the m law without first enqnidng into its prois bible effects. Passonate appeals are so made by our "No License" advocates it to women to vote for prohibition to )r save their husbands, their brothers and d their sons, and led rather by their ir hearts than their heads, they do vote ie for it not knowing nor thinking that to by so doing they put their sons into se the very danger they would shield Q- them from and by their own act make fe them nob drunkards alone, but law of breakers, low, pitiful, sneaks and liars. io Isn't it ioo a cowardly tiling to d© o- especially here in New Zealand where ie the law provHes a powerful remedy, re either for the drunkard himself or his se friends in g anting aps ohibition order., re But no, they have not the courage to ie do that, that requites some courage, t- some manliness to go before a raagisic trate and admit that he cannot control ie himself, it is far easier in a cowardly «'c way to vote for a general prohibition of laws breed cowardice too. What do :k you think of a man who. would do such id a| thing as that ? Is it swerthy of

onsidc.-ation at all. Lo;k too at tho nitional disgrace to us and our loss of serf-iespecb if we suffered such a thing to be. The man who applies for a Prohibition Order against himself by his very act admits (hat he has lost his self-control, and asks ihao his actions may for a time be controlled for him, and so we as a p-roplp, vote for "No License"' we are by that act admitting we a v -able to control ourselves or to keep sob j .r without an Act of Parliament to ke^p us s®. If we really were a aati®n of drunkards some such legislation might be permissible, but you know, and I knew, and Mr Trestrail knows that \v.± ;ire one of the most sober countries ia the world. What ivason then is there for asking us to so degrade ourselves. Why ib would be an insult to us as a people. "Who me the prohibi'ion p ! irby ? A great statesman well known bo us all by name ab leasb Mr •Joseph Chamberlain has told us. He SMid in a speech at Birmingham "Those who d© not want to drink at all and those who drink too much want the power to control those who want to drink in moderation. This means that those who confess by their actions that they are lacking in self-controlling power want to control others. Instead of government of the weak by the strong it means government of the stroii 1 ' by the weak." And now for the pesenb I have dune. I hive shewn you that p ohibit on mea- sloss of revenue and increased taxes, loss of employment to scores, social and c mimercial stagnation and sly gr.jg sclli ing. I have shewn y®u too thab ib ■ means a gr.tve danger to the youbh of the land, thab it will rai c up an in- , iquitous secret traffic thab will breed a r«ce of lawbreakers, liars, and cowards, thab it entails tb.3 loss of our national self respect and admits that we are a people devoid ©f self control . and that it carries in its brain grent \ possibilities of evil and little of good,' 1 and that is what I came here to do. t The last words ef our manifesto are • 'vote electors ' and I say to y©u when | the time comes round again show l.y your votes that you will have nothiug of prohibition. Do not, allow hhe voice , of reason to be silenced by the loud I voice of passionate appeal. Voteeiec- , boi^ and show by your votes that he;e in New Zealand we are nob kept sober „ by Acts of Parliament and that we ' need no coercive legislation to shew to „ the world in the future as we have j shown ib in the past, thab in all things i we can conduct ourselves as a free i people should and that we breed nob * I race of cowards and hypocrites bub of free self controlling and self-re.specti:ig j men. t Time limit having been reached Mr ■■i Smith concluded amidst ringing cheers. 3 The liev Mr Trestruil am Ms fe great 1 applause then continued : — t (1.) Mr Smith says he would much ] rather have discusser! the broider ;. question of Prohibition. I offered him t this opportunity when we met to c arrange for the debate. He preferred , then to accept this manifesto. i t (2 ) Mr Smith says the loss of ° revenue would b; over L 1,500., 500. I s have proved that, while the apparent; a loss would be only L 1,040,, 040, thera , would be an actual enormms g*in. With regu-d to the gas consumed, y Most of this would still be required in „ lodging houses, and far more would be 0 used by those who now spend their j money in drink. Mr Smith's assertion that for the s first two or i hree years of prohibition d no saving could bs made in the exr penditure on ga v , etc, and that there y would, therefore, be a direct loss i* amounting to the whole revenue from t diink, take no account of expenses of d keeping drunkards' in jail and Coronl y ers' inquests, etc. Then what wil a become of this three millions previously n spent in drink? Surely it will be ii spent in other necessaries of life, and 1 thus pay more to the revenue than i* would make up for the los. IVis a amount spent in life's necessities would V pay through the Customs over a L 300,000. The figures in the New t Zealand year book disprove Mr r Smith's assertion tkat the revenue « from drink more than pays for the c asylums, police, judges, etc. These t cost the colony over L 545,000, while 3 , the revenue was less than L 675,00 0; v loss, L 170,000. Mr Smith s*ys that c there were 6,76G persons engaged in it the liquor traffic. I admit that these c are the figures of the Year Book, but y of these 3,211 are household servants a and over 300 cordial makers ; this reie duces these figures to .3,255. I said, >- " less than four thousand," and that ■c was right. js Mr Smith's contention that the o barley and sugar would be wasted is d absurd. The barley would be turned ir to better purpose and the sugar used ;e by the children of drinkers. Barley -t is wasted when made into beer, beo cause it losses nearly 70 per cent of d its liesh giving properties while being :e manufactured. w Mr Smith says that of 10 original s. prohibition States in America 11 bad I© gone back to open bars, and 5 only c were left. That; is true in a sense, 7, liut utterly untrue as used by Mr is Smith. The c States h ive merely >'.. given up State prohibition i'ov local :o prohibition, known in America as 2, local option, which gives to every s- town or city, such as Cobden and 3l Taylorville, the right to settle for y themselves. According •to the n " Sentinel," or. liquor paper, there lo were over 6,000 towns and counties h I under Local Option prohibition in )f 1901 This is the largest number on

record ; hence prohibition" is by no means on ihed^clice in the United Suites of Americi. Nor i< ie indnada \yhore the last prohibition vo'e \v.>s the largest ev«r given, exceeding all previous by over 40,000. '-.Sir Smith lias quote;! Roumree and Sherwell as temperance workers, who found prohibition a failure in the U. S. A. These men did not iruke enquirie* with a view of establishing prohibition, hut with a view of advocating State control. These figures, the figures of men who were on a very hurried visit to the St ites, have been over and over ajain proved to be utterly unreliable. Then they are old, most of them dating back tv 1894-5. I give one proof of their utter unreliablenes--. They siy that drink was sod openly in many places, mid secretly in a host of places in Portland, Maine. They gave a list of soma of these places. Sheriff Pearson, who has lived in Portland for 32 years, said tint ho ss certain that no liqnor wa'i *old in many of the places named, aud that liquor is now, Febuary, 1902, not sold at any one of them. This same Sheriff, ©n the same date publicly ottered L2l to any man who could prove that drink was sold in any house In Portland. The challenge was not accepted. Wh"> should know — the Sheriff, or a visitor '? If you w.mt to k".ow move about prohibition in America read a 3d pamphlet by W T F Ferguson, AB, B D, of Chicago, entitled " The Success of ProhD-i ion i-i the United States." The lit.-.- Rev T Hughes wrote when visiting America a short tims ago : — " Ab va ious itimes prohibition was adopted in Maine, the Sheriffs have not always carried out the law vigorously. They have sometimes winked at the evasion practised by the unscrupulous and dissolute. But even at the werst of times, there hss never been an)' ; op-n drinking, or any open temptation io drink. Vulgar and degraded mon (previously degraded by drink) have been able to get intoxicating liquor by submitting to all sorts of humiliations, creeping about in dark : cel ars, and exposing themselves to the penalties of the law with more or less success. But if that is to be regarded as a failure of the law, we must say that the law against stealing is a failure in London, because there are tlionsands of men and women in that city who are perpetually, and systematically and professionally engaged in defying the law, h\ evading it, in outwitting the police, and in plundering thuir fellow men. Still, it, is a givat a'ivant'ge to us to prohibit stealing and burglary. IT we repea'ed the prohibi'ory law against theft, London would become uninhabitable. I may say that at all times the law against the liquor trade has been carried out ia Portland, at least as successfully as the law against stealing has been carried out in London ; but ■ that now it is carried out even more successfully than the criminal law is : c-vrittd out in the English capital. I hose who were prepared to run the risk of providing liquor were nob native born Americans, but aliens. If it were not for the foreign population, tht Americans would soon make short work of th« liquor trade everywhere. Ib is demoralised emigrants from Europe who postpone the triumph of the Prohibitory movement in America. Note this my friends aud remember we have not this drink demoralised drink inflamed influx cf population to deal with hes c; . hence America is no criterion to us. We intend to carry prohibition in New Zealand ; and unlike America, we can and wiil enforce the law. Prohibition will more effectually prohibit in this colony than in America. That " story" Mr Smith told about Mr Degm writing to England to the officials re the deaths from alcohol, and yetting a reply to say it was 120 annually, was too funny even for a Degan. Mr Smith tried to disprove mv figures re Clutha's land and property value by referring to the Year Book's rateable value. Is rateable value ihesarne to him as property value? (At this point Rev Mr Tresfcrail appealed to the Chairman, but he ruled what Mr Smith said was fair comment.) He says Prohibition in Clutha is a failure. Then I suppose »he incrensfng number who vote prohibition there are satisfied with that kind of failure that gives their property nearly double its value in six years, and enormously decreases crime, drunkards, from 150 per year to 7 pei yeor. The facb is that Clutha has been a success in spibe of all the power of the drink sellcs to damn Clutha. This the people of Clutha know, -and so do their neighbors who have now gone in for prohibition. I suppose they like and desire the same kind of failure. Doubtless the Trade lias done its very uttermost to secure sly grog selling at Clutha, and paitly succeeded ; but the old soakers are dying, and they are making no recruits. To say that youn« New Zealanders would learn to drink by sneaking into sly grog shops is an insult to the youth of our land. And all that talk about their doing it because it was prohibited is worse than silly. Do our young men commit burglarly because it is prohibited ? And to say that prohibition would bring about a state of sly grog selling that would be a worss temptation to our children and mean the increase of crime, poverty, and lunacy is contrary to experience and opposed to. the judgment oi our best Judges, police officers, politicians and philanlhrophists, and contrary to what we have experienced by prohiof other evils. In facb it is equal to

saying the prohibition of opium would be a greater temptation that to allow ib to be sold openly. If .so why prohibit ' opium or anything else 1 Mr Smith ' talks of prohibi ion making "skunks' of men, and quotes America in evidence. The so called skunks of America creeping in:o dens for sly { grog, are, like those of Clubha, men made skunks by our open bar system ; ineti ro'ibed of their manhood by the demon drink. That men are unable to keep soljer and nvenly under the present system is self-evident to every man who opens his eye-. If J.. coulJ bring some of the wrecks in this town and sot them bbfere you on this platform you would see a demonstration I th-ic would make you think. The ! prohib-tionists want to free our i constitution from the guilt of openly tempting our youths to a like fate ; and to bring the arm of the law to punisii all who who dare tempt them. Then we are told that our way is the way of worse ruin, | bub we don'b belie vi; it, nor do sane mer. \ talk so foolishly. We believe that j acts of Parliament tend to keep men sober, just as they tend to keep them ', honest. Laws against robbery do not ! make thieves honest, bub they tend to i prevent men becoming thieves, and { don't induce them to become thieves ' as some would, like Mr Smith, malo; 'us believe. All we ask i< that you ! will each for yourselves give this question your full consideration, then we are sure you will vote prohibiton at I j the next election. | At the conclusion of tl.e reply I thei c was great applause which lasted ! for .-ome minutes. | The final right ©f reply accorded to Mr Smith was used by that gentlemau to strongly summarise the main arguments used in defence of Continuance of License, and tj point out the weakness of his opponents case. • Amid great merriment he stated that • he had ceme ta debate with his«pponentbub ins'ead of argument he had ■ j been treated to a pleasant Sunday ' , afternoon talk with young men which : he trus'edall lud enjoyed. Referring 5 .to the story related by Mr Trestrail 5 that the latter had been tod by a I . publican that I is (the publican's) trade r ! was so infernal, that he 1 was the on'y 1 place fit for it, all he h^d to 5 sny was., that if; bhe public xv was in ' earnest, he was the most damnable ' devil out of hell if he continuod another hour in the business. He 1 would not. contradict his opponents " j figures re the relative amounts of 1 I money expended in labour in the b | various industries quoted, but in his • ; opinion if everybody was employed j and all capital expended in the • manufacture of agricultural imple- ' 1 ments, ib might lead t> the market 1 ! being overstocked. He admitted ■ that bit i ley might lose portion ■> of its flesh forming, properties in t the malting process, but, (glancing at 5 his own large frame) every body does 3 i not want flesh forming substances, and • for my part I prefer the barley brewed. 3 (great laughter.) The speaker coneluded wiih a splendid peroratiou on f " the benefits of the public sale of alcohol > ; as opposed to prohibition and bhe evils k . of sly grog selling, and concluded amid • a storm of applause. 1 On the motion of the Hey Mr Tres- ' trail, seconded by Mr Smith, a hearty • j vote of thanks was accerded by ac- :-- clamation to the Chairman, who in y returning thanks referred to the • importance of and living interest taken } in the subject of the debate and the J . mass of new information and light 1 contributed by the speakers. In an excellent speech Mr J B 3 Merritt proposed a vote of thanks to 1 Messrs Trestrail and Smith, compli--1 menting the latter on the gentle- ' manly way in which the debate 1 had been carried out. Through the '- kindness of these gentlemen in donating 1 the gross money takings to the Grey • River Hospital the institueion woulc 1 ,. ■• with the Government subsidy, receive. ! L9O 5s sterling. The motion was ablyseconded by Mr E. J. Smith, one of r the board on behalf of the Hospital Trustees, and was carried amidst ' ringing cheers.

Products. luboi 1 . Shoes per LI OOO L 375 Earthenware 400 Eiinen & Calico 460 Woolen Cloth 600 W\olen Garments 700 [ron .550 [mpleints v Mclmy SUO Alcoholic Driuk 75 C Japital. L 625 600 -too 300 459 ' '£00 925