LICENSING REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19195, 8 December 1925, Page 7

LICENSING REFORM.

Sir—ln his letter in last Thursday's issue the Rev. Gordon Bell opens with a repitition of his plea for Government intervention in Ohinemuri. Of course, he is quite entitled to his opinion in the matter of what could, or should, be done, with regard to imposing altered conditions in granting licenses, but that his view of tho question will meet with general acceptance is another matter altogether, and I for one certainly will protest against the doing of anything that would seem to me to be both unconstitutional and an injustice to a section of the community.. He contends that it would be no injustice to those who have asked for return of licenses to have them granted under improved conditions, but he dees not tell us at whose expense these altered terms are to be obtained, nor does he appear to recognise the injustice of thrusting on the electors what to some of us are pernicious principles that were not in the Licensing Act at the time of voting. If his contention is sound, that altered conditions can, and should, be imposed in one electorate, despite the recent vote, why not be logical and call for immediate action for similar so-calied reforms in every licensed area throughout New Zealand, notwithstanding the vote for continuance ? I have neither the space nor the inclination to enter into a controversy on the merits or i demerits of the various forms of Staie_ or municipal control, suffice it to say that neither the Rev. Gordon Bell nor anyone else can prove that any form of Governmental, municipal or corporate control has ever eliminated the evils that result from the consumption of alcohol, or ever can do so. In every case it is simply the o business under new management, arm therefore fails to touch the crux 0 evil. Regarding the three issue ballot paper, his statement that prohibition has "only to get a bare majority _ is 111 correct, as it is an absolute majority of the votes cast that is required to carry either prohibition or State thine* I would ask til© ivov. Gordon Bell whether he has explored the SSibSiti« of any issue defeating continuance under the present conditions which he champions? Lest he has not done so, I would give an example, taking the recent vote, the figures for which are: Continuance, 299,584; State control, 56 043; prohibition, 319,450, a total of 675 077 votes. It is therefore necessapr f or either State control or prohibition to poll 337,540 votes to secure a majority. Supposing that State control polled 337,537 and prohibition 337,530, it would be necessarv for continuance to poll only ten votes to win! Continuance being in possession and having had a long and profitable innings, receives preferential treatment in not being required to secure a majority ns in the case of the other two issues, f'onld anvthing be more unfair or und'.'mccratie 1 W. Johnstone.