The New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1919. THE COMING LIQUOR POLL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17110, 15 March 1919, Page 8

The New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1919. THE COMING LIQUOR POLL

As April 10 approaches citizens of New Zealand will realise more fully the far-reaching significance of the liquor poll to be taken on that day. A popular vote on the licensing questidh is no new experience in New Zealand, but there are features of the coming referendum which are decidedly new and which mark it as the most critical test of public opinion on the subject ever taken in the Dominion. For the first time the issue is to be decided by a bare majority, for the firßt time the voters have it in their power to make national prohibition effective within a few weeks of polling day, and for the first time they are asked to decide whether the State should compensate the dispossessed liquor trader. This is a long step from a three-fifths majority and four and a-half years' grace, but since the last New Zealand liquor poll there have been great movements in other countries which were bound to influence our licensing legislation. The United three-fourths of the States consenting— decided upon the total suppression of the liquor traffic, practically the whole of Canada has gone " dry," oven conservative Britain is experimenting interestingly, but so far inconclusively, with the public control of the liquor traffic. These results are in a large measure attributable to the war, which has had the double effect upon the liquor trade of emphasising its weaknesses and of accustoming the public to restrictions, limitations, and even prohibitions, which often prove less dreadful in operation than they seem in prospect. From the admission— is now very generally made—that over-indul-gence in liquor was a cause of inefficiency in war even the moderate drinker may glide smoothly to the conviction that we should do what we can to rid ourselves of the same handicap in peace. In New Zealand it has been conceded for over a quarter of a century that the popular vote may be fairly used to close licensed hotels. The new law is an extension of that principle, and it is well that its provisions should be thoroughly understood before polling day.

The issues to be deoided on April 10 are in themselves very simple. The voter is to be asked to say whether the State shall pay £4,500,000 to put an end to the liquor trade in New Zealand or whether that trade shall go on to face another poll some eight months hence. Probably the compensation clauses are at this date indifferently understood. There will be ample time before the poll to explain them in detail. In the meantime it will be sufficient for a general understanding of the law to say that the four and a-half millions are to be given as compensation representing the difference between the present market value of the assets of the trade and their value under prohibition. In other words the trado keeps its breweries, its hotels, and everything it has of value, and receives £4,500,000 because these assets are no longer usable as licensed premises. The compensation is to be divided between brewers, hotel owner's, hotel licensees, holders of wholesale licenses, clubs, winemakers, maltsters, owners of vineyards and hop gardens, and hotel servants. There will no doubt be much controversy as to why this element of compensation was introduced. It was first suggested by the National Efficiency Board, and is now being supported by the New Zealand Alliance as a means of putting an early termination to the licensed trade. Under the previous law a determination in favour of national prohibition did not become effective for four years at least— probably four and a-half yearsafter > the date of the poll. Such a decision if reached on April 10 next will come into force within 12 weeks. I From the prohibitionist point of view it is a compromise; from' the trade standpoint it is apparently unacceptable on the ground that the sum is insufficient. The voter is the judge. He has a positive and fixed assurance in the statute that the

£4,600,000 will not be exceeded, and he may take it for granted that if the trade is wrecked by the poll it will fight for its full monetary rights. Four and a-half million pounds may safely be taken as the cost of prohibition, and it is for every voter to decide whether he is willing that the payment should be made.

Should prohibition bo rejected next month another poll will be taken on general election day, probably in December next. At this second poll the issues submitted will be three, viz., national continuance, State purchase and control, national prohibition without compensation. The trade would enter upon this contest with the decided advantage that continuance would be deemed to be carried unless one of the other alternatives secured a majority of all the votes cast. It would run the risk of having to close its doors on June 30, 1920, without compensation, but it could win a three years' lease of lifo without having a majority, and it would have the prospect, in the event of State purchase being carried, of selling the liquor business and its properties as a going concern at full market value. This value has been loosely referred to as £10,000,000. Some appearance of exactness is given to this estimate I by the fact that the Act authorises the raising of that sum and no more in the event of the public decision being in favour of State purchase. But it is obvious that unless a bargain had been made with the trade no sum could be fixed as the price of its interests, which would have to be valued and paid for in equity. Possibly, even probably, the estimate would bo exceeded and Parliament would have to grant a further loan authority. To wipe out the trade this year the Government is pledged, if tho electors consent, to pay compensation strictly limited to £4,500,000; to take over the liquor business next year it must give full value, and the lowest figure that has been mentioned is £10,000,000. The difference is of 'importance to every voter in comparing the financial liability involved in the two proposals. There is another aspect of the new law which does not directly affect the coming poll, but which may have an important bearing on the trade's future prospects. The local option polls— except restoration polls in no-license districts—are now abolished. For the future liquor in New Zealand will stand or fall on a national vote. There can be no gradual progress for tho prohibition movement. At the poll next month it iB all or nothing and the provision for every future poll is for a three-cornered national contest between the trade, the prohibitionists, and the advocates of State control. It is already evident that the vast majority of the convinced prohibitionists of the Dominion are in tho movement heartily for a final success now. Their oldtime hostility to compensation has gone. They are as ready to pay the millions as they are to close the bars. Their vote will be heavy, but it is unlikely to be decisive. In the last test the result will depend i\pon the moderate voter. Those who are influenced by the evils associated with the liquor traffic must decide for themselves whether they are willing to waive their own tastes and pay their own share of the price which has been put upon prohibition. On the other band those who believe that personal liberty is the first of the issues involved or who regard prohibition as undesirable and unsuited to an imperfect world must make the choice between State and private ownership. In either case no concern need be felt for the liquor trade. It is' safeguarded at every point, and is well able to estimate the future and take its own risks. Without suggestion of injustice the independent voter may leave the trade to fight its own battle and cast his considered vote as he thinks best for the true welfare of the Dominion.