THE LIQUOR PROBLEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18459, 24 July 1923, Page 5

THE LIQUOR PROBLEM.

CORPORATE CONTROL. ; CRITICISM ANSWERED. REPLY TO PROHIBITIONIST. Writing on behalf of the original promotors of corporate control, the Kev. Gordon Bell says —. Archdeacon Chatterton's latest letter in the Herald of July 16 still fails to bring much criticism to bear upon corporate control, and such criticism as is made shows a failure to grasp the implications and scope of the proposals. In a letter of nearly, a column's length, only one small paragraph contains actual comment upon corporate control. In this paragraph the criticisms are: (1) That corporate control does not differ in principle from schemes adopted in other countries. But some of these schemes have been most favourably commented upon by temperance advocates, and, as compared with the Gothenburg and other schemes, corporate control represents a distinct advance. It avoids, among other things, making liquor control the concern of a Government department, while maintaining adequate Government supervision, and it also avoids giving the incentive of profit-making to municipalities. . ; .. .. (2) That corporate control offers advantageous terms to the Trade. It does not seem particularly advantageous to be obliged to sell one's i property at Public Works Act valuation, to receive on such compulsory sale shares only, and not cash, as purchase money, and to have to hand over to the State one-fifth of the total share value and wait for an indefinite number of years for the cash payment of the Government shares.

' ... There are three ways of getting rid of I the trade as at present conducted, (a) prohibition, in which we do not believe as a remedy for the evils we are trying to combat, and which has been rejected repeatedly by the electorate;, (b) State purchase, which is unpopular on account of the large purchase price involved and the multiplication in the number of Civil servants it would entail; and (c) a scheme such as corporate control, which at least deserves consideration and trial. (3) That the financial benefit to the Stato is visionary. But we are more concerned with the moral good of the community than with profit to the State from the sale of liquor. Profit on the sale of liquor must be restricted. Some outlet for excess revenue must be provided, and we propose that the community shall benefit by such excess revenue if it arises. We do not advocate the application of excess profits to the revenue of the country, because this might possibly lead to a desire on the part of the State for large profits. (4) That " The facilities for drinking are to be increased, for restaurants are to be granted facilities to sell liqu-jv." That Archdeacon Chatterton should have made such a statement shows clearly that he has not understood the corporate control proposals, It is not proposed to grant ' permission to restaurants to sell liquor. ' The proposals state clearly that the number of licenses is not to bo increased. On the other hand, the sale of spirits is to be curtailed. The introduction of the cafe system would come through the conversion of some out. of the total present number of licenses into licenses for tho sale of light wines and beer only, not by the granting of additional licenses for this purpose. Anyone with experience of , the Continental cafe system knows that the heavy drinking common in English public houses is almost unknown in the cafes. Our system is likely to reduce drinking ' very considerably; such, in fact, is one of our main objects. (5) That " the locker system is to be permitted in clubs." This system is already in vogue in unchartered clubs. The Parliamentary Commission of last year recommended' the granting of such permission to chartered clubs, also as an act of justice. Again, anyone with club experience in * New, Zealand • knows that the consumption of liquor in clubs is not only moderate, but is decreasing. (6) That " the public are to be deprived of any control through the licensing committees." The present licensing committees will, under corporate control, be replaced by much more effective public control through the Government nominees on the board. Will Archdeacon Chatterton contend that the licensing committees exercise any real control at present (7) That "no popular vote is to bo taken for nine years when the system has once been adopted.'' The triennial poll on the liquor question is one of the chief sources of evil at the present time,, and has done much • to divert popular attention from . other . questions, which materially ;> affect the good government of the country. It is not good for any country to be vexed with heated controversy on one subject every three years. We suggest a nineyear interval to give adequate time for a thorough trial of corporate control. We have been working on this scheme for many months past. It has been carefully examined and subjected to searching criticism in repeated conferences of representative, business men from all partes of New Zealand, The more it is so examined, the greater its merits appear.