THE FINANCIAL ASPECT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18066, 5 April 1919, Page 8

THE FINANCIAL ASPECT.

Thk unfortunate Rev W. J. Williams is getting deeper into difficulties. He continues to wriggle and to grasp at the thinnest of straws. His latest method of taking cover is to “emphatically deny that either Sir Joseph Ward or Mr Massey said anything at any stage in the present campaign to indicate that in their judgment prohibition would necessitate the imposition of additional takes.” What will , k»ur polite and reverend friend say;

next? Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Massey have not taken part in “ the present campaign.” They have been out of the country for nearly four months. But it is not “some years” since either of them “ said anything that would, bear such a construction.” They both have said that prohibition would seriously affect tho revenue, and when the early closing proposal was before the House Sir Joseph Ward voted against it because ho expected the revenue would fall if tho measure was passed. He explained to the House that he had kept his position as Finance Minister clear by “voting against anything and everything that was likely to affect the revenue.” Further, he said: “ I have been consistently opposed to any reduction of revenue without, side by side with it, providing for an equal amount of taxation.” Is that clear enough for Mr Williams? In the event of prohibition being carried next week, to say nothing about the compensation money, the Ministor of Finance will be faced with a direct and certain loss of £1,000,000 of Customs revenue, and Sir Joseph Ward or any other sane Minister must in such case look around at once for other objects upon which to I4vy duties that will produce sufficient to meet tho loss. From tho public’s knowledge of politicians the conclusion is inoscapable that the loss being through the Customs the adjustment will bo effected through the same easy medium, and inevitably the cost of living will bo increased. Nor is it “ some years ” since the Finance Minister used thd words wo havo quoted. He used them on November 1, 1917. The statement that ho has “ travelled since then and got into touch with leading statesmen in Canada and elsewhere,” and tho suggestion that in consequence of such education he has learned better, are not flattering to Sir Joseph Ward, nor do they do credit to Mr Williams’s intelligence. Sir Joseph Ward had I travelled a great deal and enjoyed intiI macy with eminent statesmen long beI fore tho journeyings Mr Williams refers to. The truth is that in all human probability ono of tho direct and. immediate effects, if prohibition should pass next month, will be the transfer of a million pounds of tax revenue from liquor to other commodities, whioh will appreciably aggravate the cost- of-living problem, already quite sufficiently acute. That is the hurdle Mr Williams is up against, and we suppose it is because he finds the obstaole an ugly one that he gets angry and says unpleasant things about the policy and conduct of this journal.

Another correspondent, “ 5.M.,” appears to bo perplexed over the figures we used in regard to State control. He has overlooked the fact, made clear enough in our article, that we were using the estimates of tho Rev G. E. Moore. He tried to show that because the payment of £4,600,000 as compensation to the Trade would mean an ultimate charge of £16,000,000 on the publio fund, so would Slate control, beginning with an initial outlay of £9,000,000 to £12,000,000, ultimately cost £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. But on Mr Moore’s own showing State control would yield a profit more than sufficient to pay off the whole cost in three years. The compensation money, on the other hand, would become a deadweight debt. In any case, if a majority of the people want prohibition they car savo the cost of compensation by postponing the event for One year. And it is, we believe, against the consciences of tho majority of prohibitionists to compensate tho liquor trade.