Liquor Propaganda On the Cheap

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 237, 7 October 1938, Page 3

Liquor Propaganda On the Cheap

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Your readers need not take to heart too much the recommendations by the Southland Progressive League, or of those of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. The major movement Is not the rebuilding of hotels, but tne increase of liquor facilities. It is a surprising thing that commercial men and chambers of commerce especially do not realise that the more liquor accommodation given, the worse it is for trade of every other kind. That the Southland Progressive League is not to be trusted is very clearly shown in an article published from the pen of the president, in a Victorian paper a few days ago that “This city (Invercargill) according to the Year Book returns 10 per cent, of the Dominion’s total convictions for drunkenness in charge of cars.’’ This statement is quite untrue. The Year Book gives the total only, and the last issue gives the figures as 477 for New Zealand (1936); 10 per cent, of this number is 47, whereas the Justice statistics report 10 convictions for Invercargill. Again the Southland Progressive League hoped to have slipped Mr. Bodkin’s little Bill through, but it didn’t come off. But now as to tourists. Are self-re-specting New Zealanders to be asked to support a movement that can only give liquor accommodation to tourists whilst damning their own people? Who are these tourists that are so insistent in their demands for liquor? Would it not be better to clear the liquor out altogether from the notels so that men might have the pleasure of taking their wives and children to the pleasure resorts without having to suffer as so many women do now—their husbands hobnobbing with drinking friends. And making these places simply impossible for young people? The hotel-keepers were advised not long ago, in their own journal, to make better and still better accommodation for travellers and forget about the bar. Regarding the three points dealt with by the Chamber of Commerce. Security of tenure. Their licenses are granted for one year and one year only, not three, so that if they want longer time they must conduct their places properly. To suggest that they should have special consideration is to take for granted that the license is necessary to good accommodation. Travellers know of magnificent hotels where no liquor is to be secured under any consideration. The Canberra,’’ Queensland, is a case in point. Here is an hotel without license doing an enormous tourist trade, and no liquor allowed on the premises. Would it not be better for business-men to consider a chain of such hotels right through the Dominion, and so lessen the evils that are now associated with the licensed hotels, and especially that of driving under the influence of liquor? The late Viscount Snowden said he could not understand why business-men of all people should not set about to end this colossal waste. The Licensing Committee have power now to demand tho rebuilding, etc., if the license is to be granted. The third point is the one the liquor men of this Dominion are after. Redistribution of licenses and a grant of licenses at points where required by tourists and travellers. But this is just what the people of New Zealand should be very careful about granting. The licenses the league talk of granting are on their last legs, many of them, and motoring to-day demands that there shall be less and not more of these houses of call on the wav side.

A vote for National Prohibition will not close up the hotels. They will still be needed for the tourists and if they are not they can be turned into good business premises. And the £5,500,000 wasted in liquor will then De around to be spent in food and clothing, and luxuries that are beneficial.—l am, etc. ______ NZ *A.