PROHIBITION V. LICENSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8585, 5 June 1891, Page 3

PROHIBITION V. LICENSE.

Sir, —I am quite aware of the imprudence of anyone venturing to criticise a leading article the writer of which has the prerogative of calling himself " We," and the advantage of having, if he pleases, the last word. I will, however, if you will permit me, venture to controvert some of the arguments used by you in your article in this morning's issue on the action of the' prohibitionists. I shall not attempt to pick holes in what seems to me to be your fallacious and self-contradictory reasoning, but place before your readers as simply as I can the true position of the local option prohibitionists, which will, I think, sufficiently refute your line of argumment. 1. We find that in Great Britain for 400 years, and" in the United States and the British colonies ever since their existence, laws have been made absolutely prohibiting in some instances the manufacture, and in all cases the sale of intoxicating liquors by any person except a small number of favoured individuals, about one in 300, to whom is granted a share in the most profitable monopoly that the world has ever known. This limitation of the number is attributable mainly to tne acknowledged fact that the manufacture and sale of strong drink are largely productive of crime and pauperism, and that they require to be restricted in a way that no other trades are. In New Zealand the granting a share in this monopoly rests with certain committees who are elected by the ratepayers of every district, and who are expressly directed by the Licensing Act, before granting any license, to exercise their discretion asto whether the license asked for is a "necessity" for the district over which they preside. Under these provisions it is quite open to the elected committees to decide absolutely that no licenses are " necessary," and refuse to issue any, as has been done in many districts in New Zealand for many years past. But we have observed that the elections of these committees are too often greatly influenced by the exertions of the brewers, publicans, and importers of spirits who reap enormous profits from the traffic, and succeed in getting committees elected favourable to their interests and to the maintenance of an enormous number of drink shops all over the country. We believe that it the question were left to. the direct vote of the ratepayers, and still more of the inhabit tants male and female of the districts, the drink shops would be in a great number of instances immediately, and by-and-bye perhaps altogether, suppressed. We only propose to substitute the direct vote at the ballot-box on the issue of liquor or no liquor, for the indirect vote by the election of committeemen who may now if they please do. all that we desire to see done, but do not do it because elected, as you admit, a,s the representatives of the liquor traffic. What is there in this that deserves to be called ' fanatical ?" We are acting not as total abstainers, but as colonists and as taxpayers, who at present are crushed by an enormous taxation caused by the liquor traffic, which fills our gaols, lunatic asylums, and pauper . refuges. What is there "fanatical" in the* idea of our attempting to free ourselves from this fearful oppression which is at this moment keeping this colpny with its nose to the grindstone ? But while the law, remains as it is the only method that seems to offer- any solution oi the difficulty v is to get,' if possible, committees pledged to carry out prohibition. We would far rather that the direct vote were vested in the people .a-t the ballot-box on the issue of liquor or no liquor. If they vote liquor then let the ordinary J.IVs (who will probably be no worse than liquor traffickers' committees) decide what fortunate individuals shall have the privilege of selling. Are you afraid to trust the: people with the decision of this question ? You are willing to trust them up to the point of deciding who shall distribute the privileges of the great monopoly, but not of deciding whether that monopoly shall exist or not. lamat a loss to understand why you impose this limit to the generally recognised principles of local self-government. The real question is not who shall do the thing, but whether it shall be done, at all. Are the people to be trusted to decide the former, but not to decide the latter ? I cannot see how you arrive at such a conclusion. 2. You say that nothing but the action of these " fanatics " could have prevented a thorough and searching reform in the method of conducting the*liquor traffic. But they have left us bound hand and foot, for three years, at the mercy of committees who will do nothing but what is distinctly in the interests of the brewers and the present holders of licenses. And did the party which you represent really know this when it voted for those committees ? If so, you have got yourselves into a very unsatisfactory predicament. But do not lay the blame on us. That is altogether too transparent. Why did you not propose committees on your own account, which might have carried out these. " great reforms ?" On the contrary, in dread of the " fanatics " you placed yourselves unreservedly in tlie position of accomplices with the brewers and publicans, who will, as you admit, " effectually stand in the way of all reform?,." I have often heard it said of a man, "He is either a fool or a fanatic." You Say we are the fanatics. May I ask who are the fools? ■.;,>:.

3. You express a wish that " these people," as you politely style us, " would take up their abodes in a Mohammedan country, where the people drink no alcohol, but commit crimes of violence quite as frequent and other crimes, even worse, than in drunken London." Is thefact that the crimes of these Mahonnnedans are committed without intoxicating drinks any reason why we should not endeavour to suppress those drink shops, which wo all know are the source of ninetenths of the worst crimes committed in New Zealand ?

In conclusion, allow me to observe that we do uot, as you say, " suppose that the only remedy for drunkenness that exists is to deprive men of the means of getting drink." But we do say that tho best remedy for that drunkenness, which admittedly comes out of the drink shops—9o per cent, of the whole— is, to shut the drink shops up. That is just the issue between us.—l am, etc., William Fox.