PROHIBITION RALLY.

Grey River Argus, 5 November 1928, Page 3

PROHIBITION RALLY.

ADDRESSES BY REV. M. AYRTON AND HON. W. F. FINLAYSON. There was a moderate? attendance of citizens nt the Town Hall last evening to hear addresses by the Rev Moses Ayrton (Bluff) and the Hon \Y. F. Finlayson (Melbourne), advocates in the cause of Prohibition. The Rev. G. E. Brown presided, and briefly introduced the speakers. The meeting was of an orderly nature, but at times the:e was a considerable amount of interruption from a small section of the audience, and one person who continually interjected with frivolous ;rem.ai'kf* was warned on two occasions by the police to de-

The Rev. M. Ayrton, in the course, of his address, said that ho considered the referendum the most democratic, way of dealing with the issue. On the ]4th in st. they would have to decide who was going to govern them, but they would also to decide how they were going to bo governed, and whether it was by conditions which would make for a sober people. It was a question whether they were going to clear out the liquor traffic which was defiling the minds of the people and made for corruption in politicsThey had three issues to deal with— Continuance, State Control and National Prohibition. There were some who favoured State Control, but he didn’t believe .in any half measures, and his knowledge on the subject had convinced him that there was “no half way house,’’ and that the only remedy was prohibition. State Control, he contended, would only defeat its object. He failed to see any good in the liquor traffic. He had been born in an hotel, and it was because of the effects of the trade on his father that had made him (the speaker) resolve to spend the full strength of his manhood in fighting against, it. Man was the only animal who could drink to create

a thirst. (Laughter). lie advocated state ownership, so far as all the necessary industries were concerned, sucn as shipping and transport, electricity supply, ami all those commodities which should be controlled by the people. (Hear, hear.) AH Labou’ bodies now admitted that it was not State Control they wanted so much as the democratic control of industry, thus enabling those employed in such industries to produce, the best for tnc benefit of the people. Wealth could only be considered as regarding their well-being. Ho had yet to learn that the liquor traffic had done any good. Instead of wealth it had brought them what Ruskin had termed “ill-th.” It affected the body and mind, and on slaved and degraded the people. State ownership was not worth a moment consideration. The third issue wuold enable them to sweep away the evil. Wherever there was j rohibitiou it hat been an unqualified success. A voice: What about America? The Rev. Ayrton said he was not dealing with America. He would ilea! with the facts. He was 50 years o age, and had never hail a spoon full of liquor in his life, an,l he had worked hard, and was as fit physically and mentally as most men of his :ige. Concluding, the speaker sii.nl: ' )oin body represents the gift of God to men and women, and it is not for yon to pollute it, but to keep it for Mi that is best and sacred in human life ’’ If thev were to do so, he did not see how they could consider for one moment the continuance of the liquor traffic. The only alternative was to wipe it out. The Hon. W. F. Finlayson, addressing the gathering, referred to the widespread nature of the prohibition movement and said that there was not the slightest indication That their cause would fail or that they would cease to work for it. He did not think they could put forward one argument in favour of continuance, and he had never heard of it being any good to t.ie country. The liquor trade denounced prohibition, but they did not expect them to do anything else. Prohibition was morally right and economically wise. It was a strange thing that there was no question in politics, or social or business affairs which did not resolve/itself into whether it was

right or wrong. Referring to certain persons who were continually interrupting, the speaker said: ”1 see we have some representatives of the liquor traffiacre to-night. They are good samples.’’ (Laughter.) Continuing, he said that the liquor traffic was old enough, so that if it had done any good they should have discovered it by now. Some thought it could be improved Dy control by the state, but liquor would be just the same even if it wa> sold in better surroundings. He was reminded of an argument between two Sunday school boys concerning the devil. One denied that the devil existed, and endeavoured to convince the other that he was “just the same as Santa Claus —only your father.” (Laughter). Mr Finlayson went on ro speak of the crime and poverty caused by drink, and contended that it would be just the same if it were sold by the Government. “The evil is in th--drink itself.” A voice: Did not Jesus Christ turn water into wino? Mr Finlayson: If you d ink wine mP.Hc from water, nobody will have any objection. (Laughter.) Continuing ?dr Finlayson said thax white in London some time ago he had visited the House of Lords. He was of tnc opinion that if anybody wanted to cure their admiration for the House of Lord , they should go and look in it. A voice: Cut ’em our. Mr Finlayson: You agree with me fo: once. (Laughter). The speaki'.- said it was the same witn the liquor traffic. It they want cd lo cure their admiration for it, they s’mutd watch the people going in and coming out of hotels. If th('5 r use-1 their eves and intelligence they could hot come to any other opinion than that it should be abolished. Tn conclusion, the speaker quoted from statistics to prove that prohibition was “economically wise.” He alleged that all the statements to the effect that prohibition had failed in U.S.A, emanated from the Trade. Prohibition was not a new thing. It had existed in Maine in 1893. He contrasted the conditions in the United States before and after the passing -of prohibition, and also those in certain New Zealand districts, where no-license existed. He concluded by quoting Mr Ramsay MacDonald, to the effect that they must gefi rid of th? drink if the workers were to attain leadership. In reply to questions, Mr Finlayson said that" there were only two countries in the world which had national prohibition. He contended that prohibition would give relief to unemployed and not make more unemployment. Rev. Ayrton, replying to question*, stated that there had been considerable increases in the number of police court cases at Ohinemuri since no-

licence was abolished there. lie did not think there would be any objection to the making of light wines under prohibition, providing they did not contain more than three per cent, of alcohol. The speakers were accorded votes of thanks, a similar compliment being given the Chairman.