THE LICENSING POLL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18066, 5 April 1919, Page 10

THE LICENSING POLL.

THE COST OF PROHIBITION. TO THE EDITOII. Sir, —By all means “ let us come to. close quarters wibn. facts.” Tho first fact is that you stated that prohibitionists themselves had conlessed that ■prohibition would mean increased taxation. The second tact is that when. 1 aslced you to state when and where that confession had been niado you gave a quotation from an advertisement published by prohibitionists winch seemed to support youi contention. The third fact .is, ns I showed in my letter published yesterday that you deliberately suppressed £ portion of that advertisement which clearly proves that your contention was altogether wrong. When brought to book with regard to this matter, instead of frankly acknowledging that you were in the wrong, you attempt to conceal tho point at issue under a cloud of ir'relevancies. You saw that “ this part (of tho advertisement) consist of a number of speculations as to possible savings that might balance against the certain charge of 4s fid per head. . But all this is pure guesswork and quite unreliable.’’ It may oe ah that you say it is, but you know perfectly well that has nothin" whatevei to do with tho question at issue. Did tho prohibitionists affirm or did they not affirm that prohibition would lead to increased taxation '( You know that it is as clear as daylight that they affirmed the very opposite of what you said they had affirmed, and it i> altogether discreditable that in a journal that w'o have been accustomed to respect for its fairneas and straight forwardness such unworthy tactics should be resorted to. You seem to think it to he a matter to be Dassed ovei with a jibe that an entirely misleading statement of what your opponents have said should be given currency to in your leading columns. No wonder that people who never before thought of supporting prohibition are being driven to support it in sheer disgust at tho dishonest and contemptible methods that are employed in opposing it Lot me say further that necessity compels- me to knock another of your cherished idols off its perch. Whatever pr’oliibitionists may sav or do you are quite sure, accordin'- to your own affirmation, that Sir Joseph Ward positively declared that if prohibition with compensation were carried he would bo compelled as Minister of Finance to impose additional taxation, and that such taxation would fall on articles in daily use. I will not ask you to state when and where . Sis Joseph Ward said that because it might land you in further trpuble in the matter of quotations. But I emphatically deny that either Sir Joseph Ward or Mr Massey said anything at any stage in tho present campaign to indicate that in their judgment prohibition would necessitate the imposition or additional taxes. It is some years ago since they said anything that would bear such a construction. But they have travelled since then and have got into touch with loading statesmen in Canada and elsewhere who have pointed out to them a-s a result of their own experience what a mere bogey this attempt to scare people from prohibition by the cry of loss of revenue really was. You are being driven to the last ditch and the pitifulneso o< your resources becomes increasingly apparent. You have been fighting for a cause that stands condemned in the light of every consideration that relates to the uplift of humanity, and when the day of defeat comes, as come it will, it would bo something very much to be desired that your method of fighting at any rate left behind it no sting pf regret.—l am, et °“ W- J. WILLIAMS. April 0, 1919.

FACTS AND FIGURES. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Reading your leading articles and the interesting contributions of your correspondents on the licensing poll one is reminded of the man who said: —“ There are lies, damned lies and facts, and the most misleading is ‘ facts,’ only for * facts ’ should lead ‘ figures’ or ‘ facts and figures.’ ” You, sir, have been urging your readers not to voto for prohibition with compensation on April 10 because it could be obtained lor nothing in November. Latterly your advice seems to be: “ Don’t voto Prohibition, vote for State Control!” Now, one of tho most telling points made by the trade as against prohibition with compensation is that another Government may introduce legislation to nullify tho effect of prohibition, and tho money x*aid as compensation would thus be lost. We all admit that there is a possibility of such a liappening, hut is there not at least as great a possibility that if Stato Control is carried a future Government may repudiate the business. In that case not 4) millions (which, by the way, is a maximum compensation), but whatever tho cost of acquiring the trade interests (apparently estimated by you, sir, at ] 0) millions—at all events that is the sum you use in your lender of to-day to illustrate a point which I for one have not the necessary half-eye to see), less tho actual value of property acquired, will he just as much lost as tho 4£ millions, for though you may compel the trade to sell out at a figure to be named by the State, you cannot compel the same trade to purchase its property again at the same figure when the State has got tired of the business. On the figures you quote, of course wo should have the property at about one-half of its cost if the experiment lasted three years. Do j'oiir figures mean that State Control after paying interest on tho £lO 500.000 would still show a profit of £8,500,000 for a period of three years ? I have always had what I now find must have been a mistaken idea, that to bo of any value figures must be exact; that no definite conclusion can be arrived at unless you have a fixed basis to work on, and in the case under consideration it is next to impossible to find that basis, as each party gives to “x,” tho unknown, a different value. It seems to me that if the cost of prohibition is to ho computed over a period of seventy-five years, with no allowance for any compensation derived from tho expenditure, the price of Stato Control should be computed on tbe same basis. What guarantee is there that there will be any profit? It would not be the first time a profitable trade under private control failed to justify expectations when taken over by a corporation. No doubt it is due to my lack of the aforesaid half-eye, but your figures puzzle me nearly as much as do those of your correspondents and the rival advertising parties to tho controversy. Unless more lmht is shed on the subject before the 10th it seems to me that the safe line is to face a locs which is limited by statute to 4i millions, rather than to- purchase a business (the cost of which is not ascertainable) and take the risk of having the purchase repudiated.—l am, etc., S.M. Christchurch, April 4. WHICH COMPANIES? TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I received this morning a circular entitled “ An Impartial Review ” bearing on the outside page the name of J. I. Royds. On perusing same I noticed the following statement:—“Life of Moderate Drinkers. —Insurance companies which keep separate sections for total abstainers and moderate drinkers charge the latter a higher rate because they die sooner. This is a cold-blooded actuarial fact: nothing to do with morals or sentiment.” Will Mr Royds kindly inform the public which life insurance companies doing business in New Zealand charge moderate drinkers a higher rate than total abstainers?—l am, eto., CHARLES R. CLARK. April 4. SACRAMENTAL WINE. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Apostles of prohibition stress to the utmost the evil and body and soul destroying effects of alcohol. Well, prohibitionists are entitled to stress body and soul effects of which they have knowledge, oven although these may be hidden from the eyes of others. But there is one attitude prohibitionists take up -which somewhat puzzles me, and with your permission I will lead up to it gradually and as tersely as possible. They say alcohol as a beverage is an evil thing, leading to all sorts of distress and misery. Give them that in. They say it will be allowed to be imported into this country for medicinal purposes —believing, as they presumably do, that as a drug or stimulant it is useful in case of illness. Well, give them that m too. But they are also permitting this evil thing to be imported for sacramental, purposes. They are prepared to allow it to bo imported for tho purpose of celebrating tho outstanding event of the earthly life of the Founder of Christianity. Is it an evil thing, which we may not ho permitted to use socially and moderately? If it is, how can a Christian prohibitionist uso it when he celebrates the Last Supper? One other point: I am not a Roman Catholic; I am not an Anglican; I am a member of tho Church of Scotland. May I, therefore, ask Father Cronin, who I notice is to speak here on Sunday evening, and a prohibitionist member of the Anglican Church, how they square this evil thing with the celebration of that Last Evening? I do not ask any member of my own persuasion to square the matter because, in not a few Presbyterian and Dissenting meeting places unfermented wine is used. At the same time the Rev W. J. Williams may bo nblo to afford me some light on the matter.—l am, etc., «T.B. April 4. ANOTHER SOLDIER’S VIEW. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I was pleased to read “ Three Years’ Service’s ” letter in this morning’s paper, bringing to light tho question of the feelings of tho men who have served in the forces at the front about the attitude of the prohibitionists towards their welfaroP T can back up all that has been said in Mr Boyle’s letter and bv “ Three Years’ Service,” as T know that this is the real feeling with tlie men. I hope that all the boys will express their contempt for the way in which the prohibitionists have attempted to use them in furthering their cause.- —I am, etc., ONE WITH A GOLD STRIPE. April 4. WHAT ABOUT SMOKING? TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—A feiv weeks ago Bishop Julius stated at a publio meeting he had that dav made the acquaintance of an old friend, tho first time for the period of the war —his pipe—and intimated that ho loved his pipo. I am not a smoker, as I fail to see any sense in puffing away at a pipe and blowing the smoko away instead of swallowing it; yet I do not advocate prohibition against his Lordship smoking. I am one of those W'ho have proved that a little stimulant doqg mo good, amRT wish to ask the Bishop if I have not an equal right to mv glass of beer as he has to his pipe? A great deal has been said of late about the' cost of alcohol and the little good it does f° r the money spent. Will tho Bishop kindly state how much is spent in New Zealand annually for tobacco, and in what way it does any good whatover? Again, in church, a man may be a good Christian and partake of wine in tho Holy Communion—the wine then called sacred and a blessing. Should the Prohibition Bill be passed,

the moment he iB outside of the church and follows St Paul’s advice to “ take a little wine for his stomach’s sake,” he will become a. law-breaker, and the w'ine becomes “ distilled damnation and a curse ” —thus described by more than one prohibitionist. I would also like to ask, is not the smoking habit, both in adults and youths, as much to blame for so many rejects amongst our recruits as is" the drink? —I am, eto., , . F. WARD. Hornby, April 3.