THE SYNOD AND NO-LICENSE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13888, 24 October 1905, Page 4

THE SYNOD AND NO-LICENSE.

Bishop Julius may well congratulate himself on the progress the. Synod has made towards his views on the licensing question. It is not so very long a.go that hie lordship stood almost alone among his clergy in advocating the closing of the public bars. But now, if wo may judge frpm the debate upon the llev H. Purchases motion, quite a largo proportion of the members are prepared to go the whole length with their President. Doubtless the change in their attitude is largely due to the hopelessness of establishing any system of State Control. The prohibitionists have refused to consider any proposal

but their own, and other reformers have not been well organised enough to get an alternative remedy for the evils of the liquor traffic submitted to the electors. It is recognised* now that the question of license or no-iicense .must be decided before any other question oan be introduced. We think, however, that the prohibitionists should be quite frank about the position. That it is not thoroughly understood is shown by some of the remarks that were made in the Synod yesterday afternoon. The prohibitionists claim that their only object is to close the public bars, to put a stop to the retail trade in strong drink, and that they have no wish to interfere with the private habits of the people. This is true only to a certain extent. While the no-license districts, such as Ashburton and Glutha, are surrounded by license districts there will bo no great difficulty in the residents getting what drink they require for consumption in their own homes. But as no-license spreads, as it is- promising to- spread in the southern electorates, the difficulty of importing liquor will grow greater and greater, until, in the end, with universal no-license, it will he impossible to obtain any liquor at all. This is the prospect which ought to bo • fairly put before the electors. We are not urging it as a reason for voting against no-lieense. We bold firmly to the principle that the people should have the right to deal with the liquor - traffic as they please. But we want them to understand exactly what they are doing. Under the present law, when they have voted the traffic out of the country, electorate by electorate, they will require a three-fifths majority before they can vote it heck again. It is conceivable that ton or twenty years hence two-fifths of the population will be imposing total abstinence on the other three-fifths, much against their will. It is surely time that we began thinking of some safeguard against such an anomaly. If the people are going into, national prohibition with their eyes open -well and good. But if they are simply drifting towards it, without realising all it means, they may have a very rude awakening.