Prohibition Organisers Visit Palmerston North

Manawatu Times, Volume 60, Issue 246, 18 October 1935, Page 8

Prohibition Organisers Visit Palmerston North

GATHERING AT OPERA HOUSE There was an interested audicnco at the prohibition rally in tho Opera House last evening, when Rev. H. L. Richards, president of tho Manawatu area of the Alliance, presided and welcomed the speakers—Rev. J. R. Blanchard, Dominion president of the Alliance, and Mr. J. Malton Murray, organ-ising-sccretary. The first to address the gathering was Mr. Blanchard, who said that it was their common belief that New Zealaud was ‘‘God’s Own Country-.” At the same time, tho plain fact was that many people were going to the dovil in ‘‘God’s Own Country.” Borne were busy making money out of what was sending them to. the devil, while others were quite content to sit back and do nothing to stop it. Many things were responsible for that trek devilwards in their midst. Liquor was one of them. It w-as also a complicating factor in other causes. Remove it and the whole problem would bo simpler. The New Zealand Alliance was appeal-ing-to the people to remove it by using their right to vote at the next licensing poll. That w-as the people’s road to freedom from that satanic curse. To have that freedom, a people must begiu by facing the indictment of the facts. Since last licensing poll, when full credit had been given for so-called revenue, New Zealand was over £28,500,000 to the bad in its account "with tho liquor trade. Its loss w-as worse than that when computed in moral terms. They had to record for that period 25,415 convictions for drunkenness, 0344 prohibition orders, 1989 convictions for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, 4178 convictions for offences committed while drunk, 2959 indecent, etc., assaults, 2915 prosecutions of hotel-keepers for Jaw-breaking. Mr. Malton Murray paid special attention to the circulation of what he styled as misleading *■ and false statements issued by the liquor trafiie at the present time; for instance, tncre had appeared a statement by Dr. Weeks that he does not advocate prohibition. It was stated that Scotland had rejected prohibition. Scotland had never at any- time voted on prohibition. Thirty districts in Scotland had adopted no-license and 22 districts limitation of licenses, with great advantage to themselves. Prince Edward Island was announced as having rejected prohibition. That island province of Canada was still “dry” and the Press reported in July, 1929, that tho island decisively- rejected a proposal for so called State control and retained prohibition, which it has had since 1901. Tourist Traffic. The idea hau been conveyed that tourist traffic would bo hindered if there were no licensed hotels. • ‘ The answer to t-his is tho experience of the 11.5. while it was “dry.” In May, 1928, there were 25,590 hotels in the U.B.A. containing 1,521,009 rooms, the property valuation being £1000,800,000. They employed 570.000 persons, and not one of them had a. license to soil liquor. The ‘Canberra,’ Brisbane, Queensland, is the largest ana most modern hotel in Australia and it. has no license to sell liquor; for the year ended June, 1935, it had 83,400 guests. It is owned and operated by the Queen,"! ;nd Temperance League.” It was alleged, continued Mr. Murray, that if the liquor traffic was abolished, £3,000,000 new taxes would have to bo imposed to find' revenue lost and to pay for enforcement, From 1928 to 1933, making all allowances for socalled revenue and license fees, the Dominion was £28,598,000 to the bad owing to losses arising from, the presence or the liquor trafiie in our midst. In tho 11.5. according to official figures, prohibition enforcement not only cost nothing, but lines and seizures of property- of criminals breaking the law, produced a profit in the 14 years or £34,165,930. Hr. Alurray then proceeded to remind his hearers that all who advocated repeal of the IBth Amendment, from the President of the Ii.S.A. downwards, had definitely- declared that it would make matters better. The evils arising from drinking, they said, would bo ieduced, the nation would bo educated in temperance, bootlegging and unemployment would just disappear, crime would bo reduced, and “local State and national budgets would bo balanced” by revenue derived from the sale of liquor. Instancing evidence of the failure of repeal, the speaker quoted figures showing that while during, tho “dry” years, 1923 to 1931, drunkenness had decreased 77 per cent., the first y-ears of repeal compared with the first year of prohibition revealed an increase in drunkenness of 244.30 per cent, in the police figures from 226 cities and towns. Crime had not been reduced. The Department of Justice this year, appealing for more money-, declared: “One of the surprises that has confronted the department is the rapid increase in the population of tho gaols since repeal of the ISth Amendment. The Travellers’ Insurance Go. reported that eight months of repeal showed an average of 42.25 more deaths per month than the samo period before repeal.” In New Zealand, the production of beer valued at £1,000,000 gave employment to only 493 people; producing clotking of that value employed 2617, woollens 2400, furniture .2217 and boots ISIS. Which was better, to increase employment by- spending money on these good things by cutting out expenditure on beer, or keeping the vast army of unemployed by starving these useful industries? Tho promised American revenue, estimated at from £200,000,000 to £1,000,000,000 per annum has not materialised, Official figures revealed that over the two years of repeal, the revenue had averaged only- £34,000,00j per annum—less than one-quarter ol what was anticipated. Tnis may not be duo to repeal, but it was definitelypromised that repeal would balance budgets and reduce taxation, university authorities and education boards were deploring the alarming drinking amongst the young. The director of the

Juvenile Protection Association iu Chicago had reported boys and girls patronising saloons, young girls being employed as “hostesses” iu taverns. The people oh iSlcw Zealand should vote for the abolition of the liquor - traffic. That was the soundest lirst step to ..final solution cf the liquor problem, concluded Mr. Murray. Before the vote of thanks to the advocates was moved by Rev. Raymond Simpson, questions were answered.