Page 15 Advertisements Column 2

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18265, 5 December 1922, Page 15

THE members of the Auckland Prohibition Campaign Council strongly urge all Electors to vote for National Prohibition in the interests of national prosperity and social welfare. We advise that no reliance be placed upon the deliberately misleading statements and lying propaganda issued by the Liquor Trade in the vain attempt to prevent the abolition of its highly lucrative traffic. We are confident that the Electors will refuse to be influenced by such absurd statements concerning the alleged loss of revenue, unemployment, increased cost of living, drug-taking and loss of liberty, all of which are absolutely false. Having carefully investigated the evidence, we confidently affirm that Prohibition will contribute to the prosperity and welfcire of the people in the following ways: 1. It will divert the sum of £12,000,000, now wasted on liquor, into more legitimate channels, and thus greatly stimulate the development of industry and commerce. 2. It will, by enormously increasing production, considerably augment the national revenue, and thereby enable the Government to reduce taxation. 3. It will, by creating a greater demand for labour, provide profitable employment for a number greatly in excess of that now engaged in connection with the Liquor Traffic. 4. It will, as proved by actual experience in No-License districts, reduce by 90 per cent, crime directly attributable to drink, and all other crime by at least 50 per cent. 5. It will remove the most prolific cause of insanity, ill-health, accident and infantile mortality. 6. It will bring happiness to many homes that are now blighted by drink, and save women and children from Eves of suffering and shame. We, therefore, appeal to the Electors to let nothing prevent them from going to the Polling Booths and recording their votes in favour of Prohibition. AUCKLAND PROHIBITION CAMPAIGN COUNCIL. Hon. Geo. Fowlds, Chairman. W. R. Tuck, Vice-Chairman. G. H. Wilson. T. H. Macky. J. Jenkins. James Robertson. Rev. P. S. Smallfield. W. D. M. Glaister. J. B. Donald. J. W. Court. L. E. Falkner. H. Goldie. G. M. Fowlds. Bruce Scott. Wesley Spragg. H. P. Caughey. J. Purtell. C. J. Tunics. E. Aldridge. Major D. A. Gunn (S.A.)' George Winstone. R. A. Laidlaw. Rev. C. H, Olds, B.A. John Fleming. Dr. W. H. Pettit. R. M. Brasted. Rev. D. C. Herron, M.C., M.A\ W. H. Cocker. C. S. Falconer. J. L. Scott. W. H. Worsley. Rev. L. H. Hunt. R. L. Stewart. S. Barry. R. Hill, Publicity Organiser. W. R. Ellingham. A. E. Lawry. Charles R. Edmond, Area Organiser

New Zealand wastes £12,000,000 per annum on liquor. The cost to every mam, woman and child is approximately £10 per head, or £40 per family. This is more than the whole amount received for our record export of butter in 1921, viz., £l 1,169,250. The revenue paid last year was £1,359, 000, but the "Trade" says it was £2,500,000. Let us give them in the big figure; it makes no difference to the principle involved. The "Trade" says a great deal about the £2,500,000 it allegedly hands on to the Government on our behalf, but says nothing about the £9,500,000 it retains for itself. The "Trade" keeps back 15/10 in every £ the drinking public pays, and hands on only 4/2 to the Government, and asks the New Zealand public to believe that this is a cheap way to pay its taxes. Supposing a man's rent is £2/10/- a week, and the publican were to offer to pay his rent for him on condition that he handed into the public-house every Friday the sum of £12 in cash, what man would accept the offer? If it isn't cheap to pay our rent that way, how can it be cheap to raise our revenue? Don't you see the fallacy of the Liquor Traffic's claim?