Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE REFERENDUM VOTE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —If Mr -Stancombe merely intended to state th e obvious, why did he attempt to correct the ]New Zealand Alliance presidents' I naturally inferred that he considered the influence of the trade, in the recent contest, to be a negligible, instead of a decisive factor. And his letter proves that my inference was "warranted." "Suppose,'s writes he, "the liquor trade had agreed that the acceptance of the 4£ million compensation would have been to their best interest, would the fact of that agreement have decided the question?" Mr Stanoombe answers: "No, certainly not," But the Rev. R. S. Gray would probably answer: "Yes, certainly." And no man in New Zealand is better able to estimate the electoral value of the trade's organisation than he. In any case, prohibitionists are entitled to their own view of the effect of the trade's propaganda—without correction from outsiders. To prove in another way my inference was not unwarranted, 1 will accept Mr Stuncombe's statement of the issue: "If the trade rejected compensation on April ICth, then it is also right to say that the prohibition party offered compensation." I agiee. fy certainly was a "stiff pill to swallow," but it was swallowed. The prohibition party did offer compensation to the liquor "trade when it decided, after much hesitation, to support "immediate prohibition with compensation." The party was given au opportunity of assisting to buy out the trade, and by pledging the support of a huge and magnificently organised section of the community, it made the Government's provision of compensation a real, practical offer. Prohibitionists did their best to compensate the trade. And the trade vehemently refused to bo compensated. Such is the prohibitionist view of the situation, and it is justified by the facts. Mr Staacomba may hold a different' view, but be ia not justified, in attempting to correct ours.—l am, etc.,

ARTHUR LIVERSEDGE.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HNS19190424.2.14.3

Bibliographic details

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

Word Count
318

THE REFERENDUM VOTE. Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

THE REFERENDUM VOTE. Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXVIII, Issue LXXVIII, 24 April 1919, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert