THE LABOUR PARTY AND PROHIBITION

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3282, 27 February 1926, Page 11

THE LABOUR PARTY AND PROHIBITION

[To the Editor.! Sir, —May I endeavour to correct a possibly false impression, that your comments under the above head may create. In referring to the possibility of the Labour Party conference adopting a plank in opposition to the liquor traffic you say;—

“It is quite feasible, however,, in such circumstances, that the Prohibition Party, to secure the Labour vote, would offer, so far as It was able, a quid pro quo, by giving Labour candidates its imprimatur l at the poll; provided, of course, the |" candidate gave his''personal pledge to assist in bringing,about the necessary legislation to 1 make New Zealand “dry.” The New Zealand Alliance has not,] and wjll not enter into any compact or bargain with any political party, j as suggested. It embraces members of all parties, and it welcomes sup- j port for its objective by Labour, Liberator Reform candidates. That objective is the securing of legislation of a truly democratic character, that will enable the people by their votes to decide clearly whether or not the liquor traffic shall continue. The New Zealand that exist-’ ing licensing legislation is undemocratic. It seeks no pledge whatever from any candidate that is not in accord with democratic principles. It wants the House to provide legislation enabling the people to take a truly democratic vote on the liquor question. It was founded and exists for securing the abolition of the liquor traffic by direct vote of the people. It is necessary specifically and emphaticaly to repudiate the suggestion contained in the final sentence of the above paragraph, namely, that the Alliance would seek a pledge aiming at bringing about prohibition by direct action of /the legislature, instead of by .the vote of, the people. This false and contemptible suggestlon was first put forward by the Nev Zealand Licensing Reform Association before the last poll. The record of New Zealand Alliance action proves it to be false. ‘ ‘' In order to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, permit me to point out that with the remit you publish has originated within the Labour Party, will be dealt with, apparently, by the Labour Party at its annual conference, and has not "beer, and is not in any way whatever the subject matter of any conference, bargaining or other proposals between the two bodies. I am, etc., J. MALTON MURRAY, Assistant Secretary, ■ New Zealand Alliance. Feb. 25, 1926.

[lt is apparently necessary, specifically and emphatically,' to point out to Mr. Murray tljat any “false and contemptible” suggestion In the article of prohibition by direct action Is nonexistent Quite clearly In the event of prohibition being carried, there ■will have to be a sympathetic legislature to ensure that the will of the majority Is not defeated, and naturally the Alliance will see to It that It gets behind these sympathisers, be they individuals or groups. The elucidation of this point was the only meaning intended, and the only construction that can fairly be placed on it. The last paragraph of Mr. Murray’s letter it is necessary also to point out, is superfluous as far as the article la concerned, because no shadow of a suggestion of a prior bargain to place the remit before the Labour Conference was made.]i