STATE PURCHASE OF LIQUOR TRADE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 10 November 1919, Page 7

STATE PURCHASE OF LIQUOR TRADE.

AHUUKtiIi 13 V AIK. ii. A. ARMSTRONG. A(, the Theatre Royal last evening an address on “State Purchase of tiu Liquor Track'’’ wa s delivered, hy Mr. R. A. Arm strong, Dominion secretary of the New Zealand 'Moderate Teague The Mayor (Mr W. W. Snodgrass) pre sided. Mr Armstrong said that the liquoj controversy had taken an entirely new aspect. For the first time, at the approaching, poll, it would bo possible tor moderate voters to record then true opinion. The provision of the now issue of State Purchase and Con trol was another step on the tnglmw of democracy in .this country. A! those desirous of supporting true tern pornnoo in* New Zealand should gin earnest consideration to the new pro posal. The proposal of Prohibitun had failed utterly an this country. Fm over ..thirty years its adherents had endeavoured to convince the electors but ’had' consistently bsev defeated Now a. practical solution of the liqnoi question was before the people. Tin question was whether social reformerwould grasp the opportunity offerer by State .Purchase or whether the?, would through sheer prejudice allow d to slip by. There wa_. a largo bod' of moderates who di<] not believe r the present liquor system, and evm the moat ardent Prohibitionist •would admit that it was; fair that those wilt .were in favour of the State Purchase system should have an opportunity t ; say so. After detailing bow the quo: tiou of State purchase came into exist euce, the speaker referred to the resul' of the recent poll, winch gave Oontinu ance a majority of 10.362 votes. Th* most remarkable lecture was the «oi riicrs- poll, which gave Continuance Oi 981 votes. a s against 7723 ca=t for Pro hibition. a majority of over 4 to 1 Tin' was an indication that the young man hoodi of the country was opposed ’ tr coercion in this matter. and citizens; must heed this striking declaration o' lie opinion of the soldiers, ft was th r first occasion that any soitimi of tlv liquor vo*-e had been separated, and CT. result had led newspaper* an Australia and elsewhere to argue that Prohibitin' w?n a women** movement. He rH‘ ( agreed with that; there were a gre*" niany good sporty -among our womc folk.' (Applause.) In his opinion P»* hibition had 'to Lmn"“k chiefly m outlook of old age. and wan kept o'" h v the spiri*- of intolerance and m"

. aprdiod veHcb’ti- fervour. The Vo.lcvi’it/' Lentil-' bad Pern form od in 1914 for 'lie uuniose of trowin'* the i'ioht«! of the Modern lc on/ 5 seeming reform of lb" trade in liquor " It had. in common with other orcraor-a f.ion.s been hamnm'c-i. hr it* work Iw tlve war. Tu 1915 it had asked dm tJovemnient to sot up a. special lomnrissiou to inquire into the whole, liquor qrie.siXoir ami particularly to investigate the proposal of State Purchase and ■Control Tlve Prime Minister _ hadsmadc the war an excuse for refusing to «e up the suggested Commission. Now Uk people were asked to vote on, State Purclia.se without any guide rom tin Government as to what, at involved Had the Moderate League s sugm-sCoi in 1915 been carried out the elector would be in a better position to-ila\ U. 'qudge as to the merits of the P™ ,osal. 11m league- H, ™w Pfaciw electors- in pos-'eatfon of the results its own investigations The wonderful results of the Statr Purchase experiment in Briiavn wherr «ZrSCO squnre mil*. » and Ui-ctna ami. with » POP” lal and reform. i imeß m JTa. Z irtr U rvt Briiw., c«v TT e„. ; P“ ftj, rtS"S.w«oii. coronKSHf. mili at the ami «f 1917 ft* v a°L«, 1 onlv m .^tTSJ • - , 0 effectively mam,tamed that ue s - for 191S were only Wfe t’tied to die RUdy.. q'homas ♦ u’liecp included bar inoma. k aj. *•** x United! Kin«dom A H “"”V „f that Alhaon, a Woo N Tw Un achieved 1 at Carlisle., H h was h all that, tlie removal . Urn feleme.it of ©SSL*. x&s found possible the *£“*[• house.s by nearly 50 P c > -c few breweries 'ln the' immediately • closed dojn J t*° OU^ SSiS-tL^» «* I*7 «* s tf nroiental cate# food and dnuk s be rn? I SdSy Obtainable ak liquor. a n h S Constablo of Carlisle, the mLvor and local authorities were IMayqr, and O'- testimony a P *o in the ?S l °L./not S e wL ’achieved' by any other method than direct Stake ownersh p. hMlptttc dition to the nodal and moral tno undertaking had proved <i *onW Ktate investment. The balauce-shee showed a net profit of 15 per cent, per annum, and a recent cable had an bounced that the capital amount wouW be written off in a very few years/ In New Zealand 1 * the Prihibition Party I were opposing State. Purchase, and for n, movement clainmg to base its activities on tlie highest moral principles it was regrettable to find that their opposition was ; based on the lowest'

grounds of contention, namely %e question of cost. The Moderate league held that State Purchase be a. paper transaction only, and even the raising of a loan should not be necessary", because the Trade. in their petition circulated last year, had. committed themselves to- the principle of accepting Government debentures in payment and' they should be held to that. An examinationi of figufro^ 1 _proved conclusively that the -acquisition of the liquor business could be carried out without any cost whatever to the people of New Zealand- other than the responsibility of carrying it on, and showed that a substantial profit would) accrue to the public revenue. The Prohibitionists wore asking the electors to vote for Prohibition now and get State ownership for nothing later on. In the first place this was an obvioiis fallacy, because everyone knew that it was infinitely more expensive to start a new business than to _ take over a going concern, but in. addition was impossible, because ■ the ijaw stated that if - Prohibition was once carried it was to be for all time, and no further vote nrv the liquor question would betoken in New Zealand. The electors must therefore he (careful not to be led into a trap. If State purchase were carried -a- vote would be taken at the .next general election between that issue, and Prohibition. ■ The executive of the Moderate League, had made a thorough examination of the Act. and while it bore evidence of its hasty fnaming the public ■ interest); wore still thoroughly conserved so far a., the financial side of the proposal was, coniierned. .Hinder State owner? ship the State would have the freedom and the mearr s to carry out un-. limited experiments in regard to temperance reform, and without interior-; ence with the present basis of taxa-,, tion. *

The speaker quoted statistics to prove that New Zealand wa s the most tem-; perate country in the world and wats showing a remarkaVjlc record of .progressive sobriety. for drunkenness had decreased' by nearly 50 per cent, since 1914, and this in spito of the fact that ™ the years 1916 and 1917 nearly a million more gallons of beer was consumed) per annum than in 1914. Early closing was not responsible for the reduced convictions. because the greatest decrease had taken place before that measure :ame into force. The actual number iff drunkard s in Zealand was under four per thousand of population. The question was should 996 normal people be deprived of then* liberty because four abnormal individuals abused : fc? Brnnkenrics-s. wa* an individual fault, and should be corrected by reason able measure*, applied) to the individual. and the attempt te apply the general measure of Prohibition to tlje whole community wa, based on fallacy and ik t, testified by fact#. The speaker ■bowed *that while the total liquor consumed annually In New Zealand might 'corn n large amount, spread over the whole community 1 lie daily avevarre per head worked out a*t—beer, one fifth of

ii pint; whisky, one seventh of mi p.vdinarv nip; wine, abom 1 , half a thimbleful! Even allowing that many dd<l not drink the amount consumed was not even a modi inal do,«age. • Viewed from this point, the hy* t-erical outcry for Prohibition in New Zealand amounted to nothing short of comedy. The Moderate League saw in State ownership a’ nvean s of securing pi'acieal temperance reform while at the ‘same time preserving pricelesls possession of personal liberty. (Applause.) • Only one question wa s a4:cd at the condusion of ;■ the addi'ess. , .aJs to whether the speaker thought that the revenue would be maintained in face of restrictions trader Stata ownership, Mr Armstrong replied that the elimination of drunkenness did not moan reduced consumption for the people, as a whole. With the sale of liquor conducted properly aud under better environment there need be no fear that the revenue would suffer. *, . 1 Votes of thankg to the speaker and the chair concluded the meeting.—Com*' municated.