WHAT PROHIBITION SPELLS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3677, 1 March 1899, Page 7

WHAT PROHIBITION SPELLS.

SOME FACTS AND PROBLEMS FOR CONSIDERATION. (8yJ.0.L.) At the local option poll i eld ji staffer the general election of 1886, 250,898 persons voted; of these 98,312 voted “no license,” nearly 38 per cent, of the- voters. Of this 38 per cent., how many really understood what the result would have been bad “ no license” been carried in New Zealand? A few, figures culled from the "Year Book” for: tho benefit of that 38 per cent. iiVay show thorn the error of their ways The amount of Customs revenue received from beer, wine and spirits during tho year 1807 was as follows: Beer, ale, etc. 10,035 Wine 30,518 Spirits 381,313 . A 433.871 Now add tho excise duty on 5,741,200 gallons of beer, amounting to A71.7G5; tho duty on 1,607,1141 b of sugar used n the manufacture of beer, etc., A 3349; duty on 1300 cwt of boris used, amounting to A3G57; and we have a total revenue of A 312,642, or 25 per cent, of the total revenue from Customs duties. The value of beer manufactured amounted to A33G.734; the value of the licensed houses, A 905.513; the value of the breweries, plants, etc., to A 230.416, the two last together amounting to A 1,135,998 Eight hundred and forty-five acres af hops were grown in Now Zealand in 1807, yielding 775 G cwt of hops. '’The merchants imported wine valued at A 50.000; spirits, A 176.300; beer, etc., A 39,593; sugar, malt and hops to be used, valued at A 125,706. This totals A 265,803. ; The breweries, malthouses and wine factories employ 613 hands, male and female, earning AG5,745; the licensed houses employ G 760 hands; and taking their earnings at the average rate per unit of the population, viz;, A 44, we got a total of A 297.704 i Now I want some of that 38 per cent..to see: what the carrying of "no license" . would mean in New Zealand. In the first place, A 512.642 would have to be made up in the Customs department; and as our Tariff is already high, amounting to A2 13s jicr unit of the total population, or AG 15s per unit of the wage-earners, there would of necessity have to be an increase in duty on some articles When it is taken into consideration that A 53.635 in license fees are paid to tho local bodies, this sum. added to the loss in rates, etc., on the ,A 1,135,998. would mean an enormous sum to bo added to tho already over-taxed ratepayer; to say nothing of the loss to the general revenue in the-form of property tax and the leaving of so many white elephants bn the owners’ hands . There is the sum of A2G5,893 made by the merchant, on which he pays an income tax, and keeps a warehouse and pays taxes on, and clerks and other employees r There •would be this loss and consequent discharge of employees There would be the closing of breweries, malthouses, etc.,and licensed houses, throwing 7379 hands out of work on to an already congested labour market, and the sum of A 366,449, their earnings, withdrawn from'circulation. Now, let us find out upon whom will this extra taxation fall. Not on the 768,910 persons composing the total population, but on the 292,932 bread-winners. Here is a fact giving a reason for the working-man to say "No, prohibition,” and for his wife to -say "No prohibition.”. For increased local taxation means increased rents, for the tenant must pay the taxes indirectly; increased tariff means increase in the cost of living; loss of capital and subsequent overcrowding of the labour market mean the lowering of wages; so that while the cost of living goes up a man’s income goes down. This moans ho will endeavour to live on less, and there will be a consequent fall in the consumption of local products and in the outside grown stuffs. The first liitrs the native producer,, so that he too feels the blow, and the latter means a smaller import list, consequent shrinkage in Customs returns, and a deficit in the Treasury, which means still further taxation; from bad to worse.

But, stay; let us take the beer, etc, consumption returns from 1884 to 1836, and we find a marked decrease-frem 8.769 gallons of licet, 0.272 gallons of wine, 0.999 gallons of spirits, to 7.873 gallons of beer, 0.141 gallons of wine, 0.639 gallons of spirits per unit of the population, and in spite of the fact that tho population increased from 582.117 persons in 1884 to 706,846 persons in 1836. But here is a more marked comparison. In 1885, 1200 distinct prisoners were convicted of drunkenness and received into gaol In 1896 the number had shrank to 515 persons, and this in spite of increase in population. On this tho "Year Book” remarks: “ Here the decrease proceeds rapidly and almost uniformly from year to year. It is true that the option of a fine is generally given to a person convicted of drunkenness; buf there is nothing to show that the proportion of fines for this offence has increased of late, so that a fall in the number of distinct persons imprisoned may fairly be (accepted as evidence of a growing sobriety among tho people.” Are we tho drunken, bper-swilling people that prohibitionists would have us believe wo are? A glance at the table given cn page 306 of the "Year Book” gives this the lie direct What a chaos to plunge the colony into, for the sake of a fad got up by (paid agitators—men who are being paid by jfaddista to preach this fotl to them. Is it (worth while nlunging this colony into thg throes of a diseased body for the sake of h flea or two on the outside? For what do the drunkards of New Zealand amount to? In 1896, 515 persons -were convicted and sent to gaol; say 515 paid their fines, this is 1030; say another 1030 were not subject to police supervision; what is that?—2o6o out of a population of 768,910 persons; truly a tremendous number to plunge a colony and its population into misery. Prohibitionists will say of course there will be a deficit, but the expenditure will be less; we.won't want so many policemen, the asylums will grow beautifully less, not so many persons on charitable aid, etc But I answer—Are there no policemen in Clutha? Are there ho drunkards in Clutha? Is no grog sold in Clutha? Does the quality of grog improve under prohibition? Do less peoule go; to asylums on illicit grog than under ordinary circumstances? Pause, prohibitionists, and think twice if it is not too much of an effort for you—what these feu- paid agitators are bringing vou to. See receivers in every port of the colony collecting the interest on the loans borrowed from England and the sneers and contempt of every bread-minded man. Consider vour already one experiment in this direction —Clutha. Has it not failed? Will, it not fail on a, larger scale ? When an inventor baa an idea ho experiments with a pi odd before going to the idea itself. If the model fails the, working of the idea fails; if the model is.a success it, is no criterion that the working of the idea will be a success. Thus with Clutha; so with New Zealand.