STATE CONTROL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12399, 12 January 1901, Page 4

STATE CONTROL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I read with some surprise the somewhat, well, remarkable effusion, of Mr Seed. Judging by the general tenor of his letter, he is, I take it, a pronounced Prohibitionist and somewhat biassed. I am not a Prohibitionist, and see no harm in anyone taking a glass of liquor so'long as the use of it is not abused. Unfortunately we all have not sufficient will power to know when we have had enough. Under State control certain restrictions will be placed on the sale of it, which is not done under the present system, and if the State is capable of so conducting - the business as to diminish drunkenness, I think it will have done something towards morally improving the condition of the people, as to my mind the evil lies _ mainly in the abuse .of it. Mr Seed goes on to admit that it would, be successful from a financial: point of view, with this difference, that the money derived from it would be swallowed up to meet the enormous expense which the liquor traffic entails on the colony. Now, I would ask Mr Seed how the money would be swallowed up under State control with restrictions placed on. the sale of it, and consequently drunkenness greatly diminished? Messrs Roundtree and Sherwell, men. of wide experience and who have given considerable time and attention to it, and are not biassed, as some of the disciples of cold water are, strongly recommended direct State control, and with that opinion I strongly agree, as I think reform is needed. If I may he permitted to advise Mr Seed, I would recommend him to obtain one of Messrs Roundtree and Sherwell’s books, if he has not already done so. Mr Seed also says that I admit transferring the public-houses from private persons to the State will not materially alter the character of alcohol. Under State control it will be of good quality and free from any deleterious acids. Prohibitionists argue that drink is had for you, and Vegetarians that meat is bad for you. 1 prefer to remain under the belief that meat or alcoholic liquor, taken in moderation and not abused, will not hurt the system, unless forbidden by medical men. An ex pression of opinion from the medica fraternity as to the merits or demerits o good liquor, taken in moderation, would b. very acceptable. With regard to the Benren system, whici Mr Seed mentions, I did not say that 1

favour It. I said that it was a better system than the Gothenburg one, inasmuch as there was not so much drunkenness under the Bergen system as the Gothenburg. The Bergen system is controlled by persons to whom it is no advantage to or disadvantage to sell much or little, and _ the benefit is felt in that way; a part of hh« profits go to the Government and a part to the municipal authorities. The profits are divided in grants to local institutions, charitable or otherwise. In Bergen a fine park was laid out from the profits. With regard to Mr Seed’s somewhat hasty conclusion about having given myself away in admitting that publicans have no need to push their business, I pointed out in nxy last letter that they had no need to push their business as the number of hotels in any district is limited, and thus the business is, as compared with other businesses, a monopoly. Now, Mr Seed says that Lie contention that private ownership is an " swerable for the bulk of the evil that the liquor traffic now induces falls to the ground. Mr Seed has somewhat peculiar views, and he has not explained Them very clearly. His views seem, to imply th«t there will be as much drunkenness under State control as under the present system. The object of State control is to place the liquor traffic under more stringent regulation than exist at present, and a great factor in the case is that private prods will be eliminated. I pointed out the best way would be to obtain the views of the public on this question by way of referendum, sanctioned by Parliament, giving the people the right of voting on die three issues prohibition, State control, or present system—and let the majority decide. Perhaps Mr Seed thinks that this would not be a fair way, and may be able to suggest another.—l am, etc., LEONARD SMALL.