NATIONAL PROHIBITION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15810, 28 December 1911, Page 2

NATIONAL PROHIBITION.

' TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The people have spoken. They have said clearly and definitely that they do not want the liquor business. That the wishes of such a huge number of people ought to be thwarted because of an artificial majority not having been reached is a truly scandalous state of affairs. I stand firmly by the bare majority, the principle of -which is “ On© man one vote, one vote one value.” A departure from that principle lands us in an illogical and chaotic condition. We are much like _ a liar who has to tell lies all along the lme to trj r and cover up the first onew Depart from the principle of the simple majority and you aro forced to dodge here and hedge there to try and justify that which is unjustifiable. If the people havo the right to settle this .matter they have the right to settle it on equal terms. “A ” claims the same right to vote as he is willing to concede to “B,” but “B” has absolutely, no right to assess the value of ‘‘A’s” vote at less than his own. Such an assessment is an impudence: “ A claims his full rights of citizenship; by what mode of reasoning do we arrive at the conclusion that “B” has not only his full rights allowed him, but he has also the right to curtail the rights of “A ” ? Seeing that the “ A’s ” are in a majority in this country, the position is both illogical and daft. The simple majority is opposed by some because of the alleged see-saw that would follow its introduction. The reaT reason is that the chance of the seesaw is. so .-meagre that our opponents are not prepared to risk it. Fancy majorities are not intended to make a reform lasting; they are designed to prevent the reform being put into operation. The see-saw argument is easily got over. If you nush to make nolicense permanent, let it be agreed that licenses may be extinguished by a simple majority, but to restore them a similar majority be secured by the other side. For instance, if a district carried no-license with a 10 per cent majority, let these in favour of restoration get a 10 per cent majority over those in favour of no-liconse. By this means all the objections to the bare majority and its see-saw tendencies are fully met. I do not say this scheme is any more logical than the three-fifths or the 55 per cent. Now that there are only two issues on the ballot paper, the idea of getting a percentage of the whole is unnecessary. I stand firm by the bare ma jority; but, if a fancy majority is decided upon, I claim that it would be sufficient to ask the reformers to get a 10 per cent over their opponents. For every 1000 votes they polled, we would need to get 1100; this is simple, and fairer than 55-45. Another monstrous injustice is to ask a people to tolerate for four more years a traffic they say they do not want. I would suggest that the four years date from the recent poll, and that one year after the next poll in 1914, if the people again vote dominion prohibition, the trade be extinguished in the whole of New Zealand. If the law was so amended in this first session of Parliament, the trade would have ample time to get cleaned up. The vote just cast is a pretty good proof that the sooner the trade closes up in this country the better we will like them.'

State control has not got the floor at present : and, if such a foolish proposal were ever seriously entertained, its supporters would do well to wait until national prohibition had been tried, after which State control would stand a better show of being taken on, for the reason that the unearned increment of licenses having evaporated the process of turning on the tap again would not be nearly so expensive. Of course, wo will only be able to go in for State control when three-fiftns of the people say we may do so, because what is “ sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” I believe national prohibition is the only solution of the drink problem we have in sight. It is the “ Grand National ” of social reform, and is very heavily backed. The arguments for the retention of the drink evil are sufficient for the installation and propagation of every other evil.—l am, etc., BELMONT.