The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1917. SIX O'CLOCK

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9694, 23 June 1917, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JUNE 23, 1917. SIX O'CLOCK

Thursday’s deputation to the ActingPremier was a blind rush of intolerance. With two exceptions, to bo noticed presently, the rush blundered blindly over the old ground of popular mandate, tho speakers stumbling over one another for tho distinction of intolerant eminence. It was tho main performance for which the public meeting represented by the deputation had been a dress rehearsal. Everything said at the performance was a ditto of everything said at the rehearsal. There was in tho mass of verbiage nothing now with the exceptions to he presently noticed. Yet tho deputation had a strong case to answer. Wo have repeatedly shown that they have no popular mandate. We have torn to pieces the democratic argument advanced by their newest and most powerful champion. Sir John Findlay. We have shown twice recently that tho case for non-interference is strong, shown it' in detail comprehending military efficiency, tax-paying power and the drunkenness convictions. But no word did they offer in answer. The blind rush ’ of intolerance sought to overwhelm the hlinister with tho spate of frothy words carefully rehearsed at their preliminary meeting. The case against them is entitled to judgment by default. Declining battle by reason, they relied on the argument of force.

The Mayor led off as a prohibitionist ptiro and simple. It was a deliberate misuse of his position as Mayor. As Slayer be had the right to preside at the preliminary meeting, of course. As the Mayor ho had the right to introduce the deputation. Touching for its reality. But there his rights as Mayor ceased. As Mayor of the city he bad no right to identify himself with the object of the meeting. Had it been a political meeting, say for the purpose of turning out the Government, he would not have had the right in introducing the consequent deputation to give the weight of his Mayoral position to the conclusions of the meeting. The rule applies to the Temperance meeting, and the deputation from it which be introduced. Is he, then, it may ho asked, debarred from the expression of his Temperance sentiments because be is Mayor? By no moans. But as Mayor he has no Temperance sentiments. The plea of necessity cannot be urged in support of the course he .adopted, because the Temperance cause was in the bands of the capable men ho was introducing as Mayor. The cause would not Have suffered if he had followed the right course —guaranteeing as Mayor the bona tides of the deputation, but not its sentiments. He cannot on such occasions bo both Mayor and private individual. Having elected to be present as Mayor, he should have remained Mayor to the end—silent on opinion. The others were, of course. iu a different position. They had the

right to speak their sentiments. They also had the right t-o reply to the arguments by which their case, had been demolished to fragments. ' In the latter of these they were silent, letting judgment go by default. In the former they contined themselves to the mere expression of their own opinions, without attempt to support them by facts. Of the two new things—not mentioned during tho rehearsal —one was supplied by Mr Moi'ison, who referred with curious Icmd acumen to tho prevalence of illicit, selling of liquor. But all his acumen and all his mysterious hints of the overwhelming and startling knowledge of tho police fail to efface the impression ho conveyed, thaci he asked that the men licensed to sell liquor shall be punished for tho sins of the men who do illicit trade in liquor. The acumen of tho learned gentleman is certainly curious. Moreover, its_ effect is to seriously hamper the object of the deputation which ho was supporting. Tho other new thing was Mr Hut. cheson’s reference to an alleged practice with regard to drunken soldiers. But as ho promptly, when challenged, reduced his indictment to a particular case or so, his contribution of novelty did not avail to strengthen tho shattered case which tho deputation allowed to pass unnoticed. The Minister gave the deputation the very answer that fits their pecu liar situation. He told them that ho quite saw- the strength of fhoii statement of public opinion, but bad nob come to any definite opinion on the subject himself. This is tho happiest thing Sir James Allen has ever said in public. No one could have hit on a better way of tolling the deputation, without hurting their feelings, that their idea of a popular mandate was, for all,-its vehemence, just moonshine. He was at the same time quick in the uptake with the product of Mr _ Monson's curious acumen, emphasising the grave danger of curtailing controllable sales in presence _ of uncontrolablo illicit trading, which it is the business of the police to pub down, not to use for inspiring curious legal acumen with a theatrical outfit of nods and smiles and shrugs and mysterious insinuations. But the Minister’s logic did not stop there. Supporting his incidental reference to his faith m dry canteens, ho advised tho deputation to got people not to supply soldiers ivith liquor for outside consumption. This, in reality, means that tho' proper and feasible way of stopping any evil that there may be lies outside tho way of interference with the licensing system—moral suasion, in fact. _is the way out. It was the finishing touch to the discomfiture of tho deputation, which ought to be able to understand exactly what the Acting Prime Minister is troing to put before tbo full Cabinet after tho Prime Minister and Sir Joseph Ward return —that no Government or Legislature can tolerate the dictation of busybodies who consider themselves the nation.