LICENSING REFORM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19197, 10 December 1925, Page 9

LICENSING REFORM.

Siry—The letters of Mr. A- J. Stallworthy and Mr. W. Johnstone on the licensing question merely go to show that prohibitionists, who in times past hav© credit for all. licensing reforms, have now so "hardened" on the prohibition question that they mean to make no effort toward reform themselves and intend to block the efforts of those who wish to better existing conditions. _ A licensing reform bill has been promised in the next session of Parliament. In Ohinemuri licenses are to be restored, and it seems worth while to do something to see that they are restored under the best possible conditions. Yet the attitude of prohibitionists seems to be, "We have again been unfairly defeated at the poll. We shall do nothing until the country accepts our policy, and we 11 hinder as much as we can every effort made by other people-" Mr. Staliworthy needs to take to himself the criticism he levels at me. "He wants his own way and will go no other." For what do prohibitionists care more, that the sobriety of frfr™ country shall be advanced, or that their particular of dealing with the matter shall be adopted, One is absolutely amazed to .find men who claim to be temperance advocates arguing hotly against reform of the licensing laws. To deal with some of the points in these letters seriatim: {1) the Licensing Reform Association has not asked for the app.ication of corporate control to Ohineimm. It has asked that the Government will explore the situation with a visw to the nossible introduction of "some form of Governmental control" Naturally, we think that a modified form of corporate control would meet the case, but we have asked the Government to go into the. question from all points of view. This fact makes it unnecessary for me to answer Mr. Stallwonhy in his comments on the recent referendum. (2) I have not the advantage of personal observation of conditions in Quebec, but no less authority than the Bishop of Qusbec can be cited in favour of the Governmental control scheme in that province. - His Lordship says: "It is a. hundred times better than so-called , prohibition, r %hich cures no evils, and brings far worse evils in its train." (3) The scandal connected with the "night clubs" in Montreal has no bearing on the liquor control scheme. These places are, from the report in your paper on the matter, °°tside the scope of the present- law. Ihe scandal merely points to the urgent necessity of special legislation to cieal witn them. (4) Mr. Johnstone seems to forget that the Licensing Reform Association jg pressing for the fulfilment of the nromise of licensing reform which would apply to the whole Dominion, Does he deny that the. Government has power to reform the existing law, apart from the refeißmioßi ? Ajsd woold he contend that reforms must necessarily be unjust to someone ? If he does, he surely adopts a strange attitude for one who stands on the temperance platform. (5) Mr. Johnstone contends that I cannot show that any form of Governmental control has ever eliminated insobriety. But can Mr. Johnstone show that prohibition has done this, wherever it has been tried ? The evidence from America ia, to use the language of the Federal Council of the Churches, " distinctly disquieting." Prohibitionists seem to have a patheric- belief in the powej? of prohibition to prohibit. (6) With regard to the ballot paper Mr. Johnstone contradicts himself. He contends that I am incorrect in saying, what is the truth, that_ prohibition has onlv to gain a bare majority of the total votes cast, and then proceeds to quote figures which prove my contention. The main point on this matter is that no issue which fundamentally alters the law of a country in a matter submitted for referendum ought to be carried on a minority vote. But your correspondents have both shirked the main question: what are prohibitionists going to do for reform ? G. Gordon Bell.

Sir,—ln his on tha licensing question in your issue of December 7, Mr. Bankart seems to assume that all electors are earnest voters, and really desire to see the issue for which they vote carried. But those who are in close touch with the election from time to time know that all voters are not equally earnest about the issues in question. There are thousands, it may be tens of thousands, who do not care what issßS wins, and many would not trouble I® at all, if they iveve not persuaded to do so by some interested person or party. In approaching this great vacillating multitude, those who favour liquor have two strings to their bow, while the prohibitionists have only one. Sir. Bankart thinks that the thrssa issue , ballot paper should be retained. Has he considered all aspects of the question ? What would happen if the State Controllers became the leading party as the prohibitionists are to-day ? The prohibitionists would then be forced into the ridiculous position of having their votes counted for continuance against State control. Mr. Bankart says, "It must always be borna in mind, that although the ballot paper is a three issue one, yet there is only one principle involved. Yes; and all fairminded people will say that because there is only one principle involved there should not be three issues. It would be difficult to find a more telling argument for a straight-out issue on the licensing question than Mr. Bankart's own words, "there is only one principle involved." George Jackson.