STATE CONTROL ISSUE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 31 October 1928, Page 8

STATE CONTROL ISSUE.

! LESSONS FROM AMERICA. ADDRESS B Y MR. 11. HOGG. There was a f air .attendance, including many ladies, at the Grand Tneatre last evening, when Mr Robert Hogg, ot Wellington, a much-travelled journalist, and a twiner councillor in Scotland, gave an address on .tine third issue, state Control, in respect of the forthcoming licensing poll. Tli© Mayor (Mr it. A. Raeey) presided and' in introducing tlie , speaker, said that Mr Hogg was to deall with one of the leading questions ol tup elections. “1 take it we are ad out ofter the truth,” said the speaker of tlie evening, “and that is why you and I are here. Why a third .issue? It is asked. Because there are more than two sides to a question, sometimes more than three. I have for 40 years been a staunch advocate of State Control, and that is why I stand here.” Mr Hogg devoted some time to reI plying to the Hon. Simon Hickey’e releent prohibition statement. Mr Hickey I had said the Year Book gave th© annual consumption of liquor at £6 2s 6d per head, but “there were so many people who did not drink that the drinking public could . *be reckoned at about 300,000 souls, who consumed £26 worth of liquor per head per annum. The majority of this 300,000 would be workers.” Mr Hogg gave this statement an emphatic denial. Mr Hickey, for a Labourite from Sydney, was weak in economics. “He might put that sort of stuff over on Australians, but not' on New Zealanders. 1 don’t believe those figures or statements of Mr Hickey’s. Tlie majority of _ 300,000 workers would mean that one in every four was a drunkard. W\3 haven’t (that many workers in New Zealand.” , Had Mir Hickey turned to the vital statistics he would have found that the male population of New Zealand was a few thousand over 600,000. From this We have to deduct the mate children, the employers of labour and those who have retired. A careful examination (of the figures would prove that there aip not 200,000 male workers —and it i s the male workers to whom Mr Hickey referred. This would mean that —granting they all drunk, which was not true, since some of these drinking workers drank very little—at least one . worker in every three is a drunkard “Mr Hickey knows that is not true, said Me Hogg. DRASTIC OPERATION. When does a doctor or a Minister of State recommend the performance of a drastic operation upon, the body physical or the body politic respectively?’’ asked Mr Hogg.A physician performed a drastic operation upon a patient, continued' the speaker, when the conditions were abnormal. • The liquor question in New Zealand was not abnormal, and therefore did not warrant the drastic step . Which. it was proposed to take by bringing in prohibition. He stood for the third issue of State Control, which was a cause lie had advocated for many years. ‘My objection to prohibition is on account of the things which must come to pass should this measure be enforced,” said the speaker. “INQUISITORIAL TYRANNY.” Referring to the enforcement of prohibition as the Seddon Governmeruiwproposed isoime 20 years ago, Mr Hogg quoted the protest issued and signed by the Rev. .John Dawson and the Rev. Frank Isitt, which was as follows: “ To make the possession of liquor a crime, the effective detection of winch would require the correlative right of search in every house would be to establish an odious and inquisitorial tyranny entirely foreign to the i-undamental pnncipiee of British law, and to the whole spirit of British liberty. We protest against the threatened invasion of tlie privacy of .the home by inspectors, against the espionage it would produce, against the strained relations and suspicion that would result .amongst neighbours, against the incentive to breaches of the peace on the part of decent selfrespecting citizens which would accompany inquisitorial questionings and domiciliary visits. . , , . , “This is exactly what is taking place in U.S.A. to-d'a.y,” said the speaker. SEARCHING AND SHOOTING. * All over America agents of the law were going into people’s houses, searcthino- and ,shooting. In one instance they followed a man . into his home, where Iris wife was lying in child-birth, and shot him before her eyes, although no search was made and the man wats ony a suspect. Such callous murders nod croing on ever since l the passing or the Prohibition law. What was the effect of the Prohibition law .in America? Take some of the American cities and compare them with New Zealand cities of siimlar size. In Atlanta the convictions for drunkenness were 49.3 per 100,000 of population. and in Auckland. 6 7: Schanton, 56.7, Wellington 9.4; Cambridge, Mass., 31.6, Christchurch 0.0 - in the lovely Sacramento V alley, where Nature was particularly lavish in her gifts, 37.7, and in Dunedin,, with 20,000 less inhabitansi 2.8. Banking m America had increased largely on the oiMit years under Prohibition and the country had been prosperous. During th© war America worked for the other beMiivercnts, and when the war was own work remained to be done. ABOUT “EYEWASH.” A certain prohibition lecturer in this district was reported to have said that the agitation for State control was aiL “eyewash.” “Well,” said Mr. Hogg, “even eyewash has its beneficial uses. If one had an affection. of the . eyes and consulted a specialist, it is a thousand to one the first thing he would prescribe would be an eyewash. But, taking it in its wide sense, to so •characterise a serious proposition . is no argument, as Lord Shaw has said: ‘With State control there is no appeal to th© voter’s private interest; his only interest is that of the general taxpayer.’ ‘Progress in temperance,’ said Mr. Graham Brooks, ‘depends at every step upon a convinced public opinion, so that tb© first practical issue of the problem is to get our temperance methods into that* position where public sentiment can act* and he acted upon with the greatest efficiency. ’ ” If it was considered 1 what New Zealanders actually drank it was amusing to hear people speak of drunkenness; in this country. Actually statistics showed that the New Zealander drank a, pint of beer every five days, a nip of whisky every nine days, and a I thimbleful of wine ©very day. “We are told that prohibition brings happiness and prosperity,” continued the speaker. “Let us take the case of dry America.” He took the Anti-Saloon League!s book for 1925, which gave a record of statistics up to 1923. Unfortunately the league saw that the statements 1 were giving the lie to their hopes, and after 1925 they took care not to include the statistics of subsequent years. The speaker further quoted as a comparison figures in connection with both America, and New Zealand. The increase in the number of depositors at banks in U.S.A. was 31.6, but in New Zealand, when the country was not particularly prosperous, the increase

w|as 40.90. Deposits increased in U.S.A. by 78.14 per cent, but by 104.30 in New Zealand. In U.S. the workers enjoyed 36.6 per of the increased wealth, hut in New Zealand the figure was 70.2. In Great Britain the conviction® for drunkenness were being reduced every year. Hie decrease showed a steady trend to temperance, and the figures for the Dominion showed the sobriety of the country, as in 1927 the percentage of drunkenness was only 4.5, the lowest in any white community. effect on morals. It was claimed that prohibition would improve mortis, but in America* to-day illegitimacy had increased 2.8 times in proportion to the increase in population. This result could 1 not he blamed on the negroes, for 2.2 of the increase was due to whites. It was also claimed that venereal disease spread quickly in a. “wet” country, but those best qualified l to know said the drunkard was immune. The experience in America was that under prohibition venereal diseases had increased 2.9 times. In America divorces had increased 1 to 1.52 per 100,000 of population 1 , a proportion three times that obtaining in New Zealand. It was also claimed by prohibitionists that indulgence in drink in the last “wet” year in America a total of 2,472.385 dollars was embezzled; in the l first “dry” year the total was 4.406.903 dollars: in the fourth “dry” year 10.311.258 dollars: and in the seventh \-ear 14,038,009 dollars. DEATHS FROM ACOHOLISM. In another respect the expectations of the prohibitionists had been given tn© lie by experience. It might have been expected that under prohibition death from alcoholism would decrease, i but the fact that death from alco-, holism in America had increased from 1.4 per 100,000 in the last “wet” year to 4.1 last year. Over the same period mental cases had increased three times. The .speaker had seen a book which told the full story of the resolution by the Christian Temperance Union of America, showing that the resolution condemning prohibition was passed; in 1925, but kept secret for two years, when a further plebiscite was taken. The book contained letters from hundreds of American clergymen condemning prohibition. Canada had changed from prohibition to State control, and the convictions dropped from 5.5 per 100,000 under prohibition to 2.5 under State control. Tlie speaker quoted the success of State control in villages in Scotland, and drew attention to the fact that during the war tlie Government instituted State control in ai belt of 40 miles of country across Great Britain at the border between Scotland and England. Under State control the State provided the funds to buy out the existing hotels, and the management of the hotels was then entrusted to a local committee. The history of all movements showed that a third' party was always unpopular, because it tended to help one and hurt the other of the remaining parties.' As' sure as right must prevail, the moderate party must grow in this country until it was the dominant party, and they would yet see State control placed on the Statute Book. Upton Sinclair’s book “Oil” was illuminating as showing the hold that “hard” liquor had on tlie young people of America. If people read the book published by the Christian Temperance Union of America he had no doubt as to how they would vote on election day. _ , At the conclusion of his address, Mr. Hogg was asked and answered several questions. A vote of thanks, moved by Mr. L. A. Taylor, was carried by acclamation. In proposing the motion Mr. Taylor announced that, while lie was not a supporter of the policy outlined by Mr. Hogg, he thought the meeting should express its appreciation of the information afforded by the address.^

[Extended Report By Arrangement.]