Reply to an Open Letter

NZ Truth, Issue 692, 21 September 1918, Page 3

Reply to an Open Letter

Addressed to me by REV. R. S. GRAY,

Dominion Organiser, New Zealand Alliance.

SIR,— : . . In the "Auckland Star" of the 4th September, 1918, you addressed ian open letter to me, and requested my direct answers to certain questions propounded by you. As Chairman of the Auckland Provincial Council, I feel that I can speak with som'e authority on behalf of the Trade, and have accordingly decided to comply with your request, and give you my personal opinions upon the queries submitted by you. I set out m rotation your questions, and ''append my respective answers thereto, so that any electors interested m the subject may be able to intelli-i gently follow our different, points of | view upon this important problem:— ! QUESTION No. 1— \ Do you wish Parliament to "as- ' certain the true -convictions of the people?" ANSWER No. 1— Yes, and I am as sincere m my desire as doubtless you are. QUESTION No. 2— Do you desire that "a majority of the Electors shall decide the issue?" '■ ANSWER No. 2— If this term "issue" m the question is truly and honestly interpreted as meaning that isßue between^ the RETENTION of the Manufacture and Sale of Alcoholic Liquor (those Electors m favour thereof having j been given, by the manner m i •which the issue is submitted to I them for decision, an oppor- J tunity of expressing their conscientious views regarding the method of such retention) and the ABOLITION of the Manufacture and Sale of Alcoholic Liquor, my answer is "Yes." QUESTION No. 3— Do you consider that the proposal to give each Elector a vote on one issue only, and to require a majority of the total votes cast before any issue can sueN ceed, an honest attempt to ascertain the wish of the majority? ANSWER No. 3— Yes, most decidedly so, as the wish and true convictions of the majority-of the people upon the question as to whether or not alcoholic liquors shall be manufactured, sold, and consumed In the Dominion can only be obtained by a poll taken on A NATIONAL. THREE I^SUB BALLOT PAPER such as is suggested m the Petition oiroulated, to which you take exception, but which has my unqualified support and approval, a In my opinion, the only way Pp-lia-ment can ascertain the true number of Electors who > are PROHIBITIONISTS ON PRINCIPLE, and who seek the total abolition of the liquor trade, is by submitting the question m the form of a Three Issues National Ballot Paper as embodied In the Petition. QUESTION No. 4— ' If out of 500,000 Electors 245,000 voted fot- National Prohibition, 165,000 for National Ownership, and 100,000 for National Continuance, would not Continuance win, although 400,000 voted against and only 100,000 for it? ANSWER No. 4—i ' .Yes, and rlgfatly so, because a Licensing Poll is mainly taken for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the Electors desire to prohibit the Manufacture, Sale, and Consumption of Alcoholic Liquors ih the Dominion. , The Licensed Hotel Trade isa business which has for many years been carried on with the full sanction of the law, and it should continue ''to be so carried on until there is a majority m the Dominion IN FAVOUR OF' AN ALTER- '"■- ATION OF POLICY m connection therewith. This, as you are well aware, and must candidly admit, is NO NEW PRINCIPLE. The principle that if at any Licensing Poll no issue is carried by the requisite majority the existing licenses shall continue until the next Licensing Poll underlies all Licensing legislation m New Zealand, and has not m the past been questioned or actively attacked by your party. Taking the figures as quoted by you, which, I venture to assert, are as extreme as possible, and are not justified m view of the vote at the last Licensing Poll, taken during war time, whon upon the National question 25T.442 voted m favour of "Continuance" as against 247,217 who voted m favour of "Prohibition " IT MUST BE OBVIOUS that THE MAJORITY would be m favour of the RETENTION OF THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND CONSUMPTION of Alcoholic Liquors m the Dominion, although they would be divided m opinion as to the -method of such .manufacture and sale —seeing that with' 100,000 votes cast m favour of "Continuance" and 155,000 votes cast m favour of "National Ownership," there would be a TOTAL VOTE OF 255,000 cast IN FAVOUR of the RETENTION OF LIQUOR, as against 245,000 votes cast IN FAVOUR of PROHIBITION, or the Total Abolition of Liquor, or, m other words, A clear Majority • of io.ooo IN FAVOUR OF ' THE RETENTION of Liquor as afcainst the Abolition thereof. I must confess I cannot understand your solicitude about THIS THREE ISSUES NATIONAL BALLOT. PAPER, as if your party's prognostications are correct that the' MAJORITY of the Electors m the Dominion are IN FAVOUR of the TOTAL ABOLITION of liquor, then the National Prohibition Issue upon the Ballot Paper will be carried, and' the two other issues thereon having, reference to .the RETENTION of Liquor will be of np avail. Why, then, worry yourself

needlessly over their inclusion on the Ballot Paper? QUESTION No. s— • Do you not know that where three or more issues are involved the only fair method of ascertaining the convictions of the voters is by Home form of preferential voting? ANSWER No; 5— No, the convictions of the Electa^ can be FAIRLY OBTAINl» BY THE METHOD ADVOCATED IN THE PETITION • without preferential voting. If upon the Ballot Paper therein referred to, 51 ELECTORS OUT OF EVERY 100 were IN FAVOUR OF PROHIBITION, the question would be settled at the .Poll. If, however, upon the two other issues THE MAJORITY of the Voters were DIVIDED. IN THEIR 1 CONVICTIONS although UNITED IN THE BASIC PRINCIPLE of the "RETENTION OF LIQUOR," it would be for Parliament to seek some method of enabling this majority to come together and SO PREVENT the PROHIBITION of Liquor being FORCED upon the people by a! MINORITY of their number. QUESTION No., 6— Are you prepared to advocate and adopt this, and, m • order that the very large section of the Electors who believe m Prohibition without any compensation, either m money or m time, may have an opportunity of expressing their convictions, are you willing to have that as a fourth issue on the Ballot Paper? ANSWER No. 6— ' ,' No, because I do not deem it necessary for the reasons above given, and because, further, I believe that any system of preferential voting would only lead to confusion m the minds of the Electors. lam fortified m this opinion by the experience of New Zealand Electors and by the recent decision of the Imperial Legislature. THE • VOTING UNDER THIS METHOD would at best be only AN "UNSATISFACTORY COMPROMISE,' and would j not tend to a stable and permanent solution of the problem. Re the Fourth Issue suggested by you regarding Prohibition, I would point out that the "NATIONAL PROHIBITION" Issue UPON THE BALLOT PAPER IN THE PETITION objected to by you DOES NOT INCLUDE the payment of COMPENSATION to the Trade. It is THE SAME ISSUE that has been PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE, which, if carried, becomos operative, without compensation, four years after the expiration of the Licenses current at the taking of the Poll. This postponement of the operative effect of the vote allows a small measure of compensation for the vested interests of those engaged- m the Trade for the abolition of their businesses, carried on for many, years with the full sanction of the law. The insertion of a fourth issue upon the lines indicated by you would, m my opinion, be manifestly unfair and inequitable. I have endeavoured m the answers aboVe given by me to place concisely and fairly my personal views upon the question, to enable th© unprejudiced public to judgre intelligently upon the different aspects of the same. The SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM is one for PARLIAMENT, and, doubtless, the presentation, of both Petitions will enable it to adopt that course which m its judgment will prove the best to follow m the interests of the people generally throughout the Dominion. .< . Yours faithfully, ALFRED S. BANKART.