THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1919. THE LICENSING ISSUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17148, 30 April 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1919. THE LICENSING ISSUE.

The result of the special poll upon

the licensing issue has now been placed beyond doubt. The latest returns increase the majority for continuance to 7230 votes, and the number of votes still outstanding cannot reverse this position. However disappointing the popular decision may be to those who sought the abolition of the liquor traffic, all who take a temperate view of the question must admit that the carrying of prohibition by a narrow majority, which seemed possible until the decisive opposition of the Boldiero was revealed, would have been of doubtful benefit to the community. Prohibition is offered as the remedy for the evils which are directly or indirectly attributable to intoxicating liquors, but its most zealous advocates do not pretend that its salutary influence would be immediately apparent. In maintaining that a community which banishes alcohol would never again permit its introduction, they presume that the original decision would be confirmed and justified by a reasonable experience of its operation. It is idle to point to the existing legislation as a practical safeguard against a premature reversal of that decision. The only reasonable view is that a sumptuary law of such far-reaching effect, intimately concerning the social customs and daily habits of thousands of people, cannot have any substantial duration unless it has the support and approval of a positive majority of the community. The Hseald has always questioned the wisdom of referring such a decision to a bare majority. Even those who regard the demand for a three-fifths majority as excessive prudence must recognise that there is a vital difference between a bare margin of a few hundred votes and a workable majority which would give reasonable stability to the law. Had prohibition been forced upon the country in spite of the opposition of nearly half the electors the position would have been as uncertain as that of a political party undertaking the government of the country with a majority of two or three votes, while the opposition comprised a compact group of members, alert to seize upon any advantage that would enable it to secure the defeat of the Ministry. As an indication of the prohibition movement's progress in New Zealand, this poll is of doubtful value. At the moat it has shown that a majority of the electors are individually not prepared to make the sacrifices involved by the acceptance of prohibition, and at ihe same time to pay a heavy price for the experiment. It is unnecessary to analyse the votes of men and women, of civilians and soldiers. The franchise does not discrimin. ■* between the sexes, and neither men nor women vote by any set rule. Nor is it reasonable to place any larger responsibility upon the soldiers. Their judgment was independent of the propaganda which prefaced the poll in the Dominion, and there teems good reason for believing the* a decisive influence was the prospect of another poll later in the year. This complication of the issue—as compared with the clear-cut questions of the two previous pollscaused hesitation and confusion among certain sections of both prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists, and a considerable number cf electors mu3t have reserved their decisions, either by withholding their I votes altogether or by casting them j in the manner that seemed likely to preserve their opportunity for reconsideration. There has already been (some criticism of the ballot-paper ; provided for the next poll. Upon a ; temperate examination, it appears to be a fair and effective means of ascertaining the will of the people. Reduced to its simplest terms, the controversy is between those who would abolish intoxicating liquors and those who consider that alcohol has a legitimate place among the people's beverages. There may be, and indeed is, division among the latter as to whether the manufacture and sale of liquor should be permitted to private monopoly or conducted by the State. It is, however, difficult to perceive any real injury to the prohibition cause by the three-issue ballot-paper. It may divert to State control votes which would otherwise be given for prohibition, but has the prohibitionist any legitimate claim to such halfhearted support? The only possible splitting of votes upon this ballotpaper is among the opposition to* prohibition, and it is a fair contention that unless those who vote for

prohibition are in an actual majority over all who distrust its efficacy or doubt its necessity, the abolition of alcohol would be both premature and imprudent. Last year's Licensing Act treats as axiomatic the dictum that prohibition is the "final solution'' which is the very essence of the controversy, and while providing the means for a revolutionary change, contains only negative safeguards against a hasty leversion. As the Act now stands, a vote in favour of national prohibition would become effective on July 1, 1920, and no licensing poll would thereafter be taken. The | legislation of 1910, superseded by this measure, ensured a probationary I experience of four and a-half years ! for national prohibition, and pro- ' vided that if national restoration I were then sanctioned, licenses should l be again issued subject to the deci- . sion of (he electors three years later, . to be followed by a periodical succession of referenda. Thus in 1910, j Parliament recognised that public : opinion is liable to change, and designed machinery that would permit its expression, and yet protect the country from careless vacillation. The advisability of inserting similar

i precautionary measures in the latest 1 legislation was set aside by Parliament last year* but it cannot be permanently, ignored. Should prohibition be carried within the next few months, the substantial minority would find encouragement in the existing legislation to press for another poll upon the question of State control, and the new Parliament might not easily resist its representations. This development is not improbable, since the cause of prohibition will probably be pleaded on the ground that it is the cheapest method of eliminating the private trade, and, i therefore, the best way to an experi-1 ment in State control.