Liquor Question.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XXLVI, Issue 4286, 22 July 1899, Page 2

Liquor Question.

GOTHENBURG SYBTEM CHAMPIONED. At the Opera House, Hawera, Mr H. Manning Stewart delivered an address on the liquor question last evening. Mr C. E. Major, who was in the chair, said he was there simply to conduct the meeting in a fair manner; so that his presence was not significant of his views, which he would give later on.

Mr Stewart said that despite the insinuation which a narrow-minded clique had Eut about town, he was there entirely "on is own," he had no connection with brewers and publicans, and wished to speak simply what was in his own mind without relation to either prohibitionists or liquor sellers. - He regretted that after speaking at Mr Isitt's meeting he had not thanked that gentleman for his courtesy, but he formally did so now, and would be glad to give Mr Isitt or any of his friendß an opportunity of taking part in his meeting. Developing the argument used by him on a previous occasion, he held thai the moderates, who were not the greatest drinkers, but were the greatest thinkers, had a right to be considered mainly in this matter. He was opposed to prohibition because it was impracticable and unattainable, and was not within measureable distance of accomplishment. It had been tried for 30 years in Maine and Kansas and the testimony was s« conflicting that it was dangerous for the colony to aocept it. There was no evidence that the people of Maine were better, either morally or intellectually than the people of any other State in the Union, and certainly from Maine there came no inventors, no men of letters, no distinguished men. Bather the other way — people from the State of Maine were now regarded by the people of other States much in the same pitying way as members of a family regarded a Weak-minded brother. It was curious that if the effeots in Maine were as beneficial as they were made out to be other States generally did not follow the example, for the Americans were ready to copy anything good. As to New Zealand the j Official Year Book figures did not show j progress. In 1898 the votes oast numbered For license . . 78,771 Reduction . . 25,919 No license . . 84,435 giving a majority for no license of 10,664, so that in '93 the Prohibitionists had a majority. At the next licensing poll, in 1896, For continuance . . 139,580 Reduction . . 94,555 No license . . 98,312 i On these figures, he asfted, how long would it be before prohibition was secured in New Zealand. As to whether prohibition would be a good thing he argued that total abstinence from intoxioating liquor did not necessarily mean no orime, no poverty, nc> lunacy. China was practically a prohibition country. Was there no crime there, tor were the Chinese a race we Bhould emulate ? So with Mohammedans. Prohibitionists say orime is the ' result of drink ; political economists say it is due to poveUty — bo they differed, and he thought tihe latter were as

reliable guides as the former. He ■ ridiculed prohibitionist forecasts of the ' increase of lunacy owing to drink, and criticising figures by Dr. Forbes Winslow published aB a prohibitionist leaflet said they meant, logically, that in 58 years hence there would be 50 million lunatics in Oreat Britain. Suoh statements were ridiculous, and the prohibitionists should argue soberly, and not make statements nobody could believe. These figures also involved that one-third of the population would in & similar time be criminals and a very large number invalids. Did people believe these statements, or suppose that Great Britain would occupy the position it must occupy if the prohibitionists' figures were accepted ? He ridiculed as opposed to everyday knowledge the statement that three farthings worth of bread contained as much nourishment as £5 5s worth of beer, and condemned as inconsistent the branding of persons like the Mayor of Olulha as unworthy of belief because they bought grog illegally, when prohibitionists claimed reliability for their own party who alio bought it illegally in order to become informers. The suggestion that of £10,000 a year received in Hawera all but £280 remained with the publican, was condemned as misleading, for everyone knew that publicans and brewers and all personß directly or indireotly connected with' the trade, who numbered hundreds and hundreds, were fed, clothed, and supported out of the gross total. But while saying bo much to expose the unfairness and inacouraoy of prohibitionists he was not in favor of the present system of public houses because he held that a system which gave one man a monetary interest in making another man drunk was a disgrace to civilisation. You could not however prevent people drinking— they did not do it in Clutha, and he quoted the remarks of Messrs Bawlins and Morrison in Parliament to show that independent men agreed that prohibition in Olutha was a fraud. If not then the best thing to do was to properly regulate the sale, and this he held could beet be done by handing over the selling and dispensing of liquor to the State. The State, managed railways, insurance and other matters and' could control the liquor traffio in a way that private people could not. He strongly advocated the adoption of the Gothenburg system, and quoted from a pamphlet by a Cheshire clergyman who had examined the system to Bhow that it worked admirably. The cases of Bergen, Christiansen and other places were mentioned. A report by an American commissioner on tni working of the system in Norway, Sweden, and Finland was quoted. It was stated that the hours were limited, that drinking was decreased, and that .for the drinking which did take place the profits to the State were used for beneficial State purposes. The Bishop of Chester, Mr Gladstone and Mr Chamberlain were quoted in favour of State control as the one solution of the problem. In conclusion, the speaker urged that prohibition was impracticable, that if practicable it was not necessarily good, that Hawera would be no better for it, though the loss of revenue would mean a large increase in rates. Prohibition would probably prohibit the moderate man who would not demean himself to ask for grog at the back door, but it would not prohibit the man with a ''long thirst." Prohibitionists ought really to welcome State control, for onoe get State monopoly and it would be an easy matter if the people thought it desirable to stop the sale either at once or by degrees. He had given what he honestly thought the best remedy, and he asked people to help him to secure it rather than seek the unattainable. If some one had a still better plan let him bring it forward*

There were a few questions, in reply to which Mr Stewart said the State should buy out the hotels. If any one in Hawera had the chance of buying out all others and securing a monopoly would it not pay him ? If so it would pay the State.) Another question was asked whether Mr Stewart had been turned out of the British Workman lodge for breaoh of the obligations.

Mr Stewart denied this, and entered into a history of his connection with the lodge, stating that he was elected to office in it, but objected to its being used, as some members desired, for prohibitionist party pnrposes, and because he did so he was taken to task. He detailed a number of inoidents to show what took place. They elbowed him out ot nomination for the Chief Templar's office, but proposed him as Vice Templar, and he declined and severed his connection. He alleged that certain people in the lodge had virtually forced out another member. This led to a long and lively discussion. The Chinese next formed the subject of a discussion.

It was 11 o'olock when the usual votes of thanks brought the meeting to a olose.