£80,000 WASTED

NZ Truth, Issue 749, 25 October 1919, Page 5

£80,000 WASTED

What the Prohib. Agitation Cests (he Country

THE APRIL FOOLISHNESS,

Lady Henry Somerset Says: Prohibition A Distinct Infringement of Liberty.

While the burden of taxation -which is being placed on the shoulders of those least able to bear it is becoming intolerable, while every month shows that the increase m the cost of living to the working man is such that life is being- made unbearable, it does not come as cheerful news to learn that £80,000 has been literally fired away, wasted, and pleased nobody, the Prohibs. particularly. The cost to New Zealand of having a referendum on the Liquor question of April 10 last, amounted to £ 80,000, and the man or •woman who can establish as a" fact that that £80,000 was well spent Will be something- of a freak. Of course, it must be borne m mind that the Prohibs. or this oountry have sought to repudiate any suggestion that they were m any way responsible for the taking of the referendum m April last, and m their CHARACTERISTIC EVASIVE MANNER seek to throw the responsibility on to the shoulders of the individuals who formed the National Efficiency Board, who without any regard for the efficiency of the country, right at a time i when the British Empire was up against it, took a course, or recommended a line oft action, the effect of which was to divide the country, and by dividing it> weaken it. We know that the National Efficiency Board recommended a referendum on the question of Prohibition with compensation to those interested m the event of National Prohibition being carried at the poll. We know that the Prohibs. were divided on the question, that they urged that the matter of compensation was a stumbling block to a solid Prohibition vote being recorded, but at the same time a strong suspicion was formed by impartial onlookers that the PROHIBS. CAMOUFLAGED THE POSITION, that m their hearts they sought to soften the defeat which was inevitable. That the Prohibitionists cannot be exculpated from the charge of ha\ing assisted m the direction of' wasting £ 80,000 is more than borne out by the fact that they took up with a zest the proposals of the National Efficiency Board, that they hurried up, and worried the weak Prime Minister of New Zealand into acceding to the demands, viz., to give effect to the recommendations of the National Efficiency Board, that so-called Efficiency Leagues sprang into existence, and that a great effort was made to stampede the voters into sending New Zealand "dry." The result of the effort was a signal defeat of the Prohibitionists, and as the taxpayers of New Zealand have been compelled to foot the bill for £ 80,000, it will at once be realised that the Prohibitionists had nothing to lose, and all to gain, but at the expense of the community. The working man of this country when he realises that his stiff and inquitous 'burden of taxation is made* all the heavier because of the fanatical zeal of the Prohibitionist should seriously consider whether his cause is being served by hearkening unto the

OILY WORDS QF THE . WOWSER, and being tricked into voting- for something which is a very costly affair.

Perhaps m the past it has not been a very easy matter to estimate the cost to ,the country of taking a referendum on the miserable Liquor question, because hitherto the taking of the referendum was m conjunction with the general elections, and it is safe to surmise that costly as are the elections to the taxpayers, the expense incurred In holding the referendum swells the general expenditure. The April referendum concerned only the Liquor question, and its cost was £80,000. How much better would it have been if that sum had been utilised m the direction of providing homes for the homeless. Eyen . before the decisive vote of April i 0 last, the Prohibs., or at any rate their mouthpieces, who pretended to be sanguine of success, did not hide the fact that even if Prohibition was carried and compensation -was paid to those interested m the liquor business, the end of the squabble was not m sight. Some assured the community that a decisive "Dry" vote would bring finality. In the next breath they de-. clared that there would be a fight, a never-ending; fight, an admission which was a fatal one, inasmuch as it showed that the only sane solution of the Liquor question which could be reached was a system of State Purchase and State Control. And despite the fact that the Prohibs. are now Imploring the -electors to

'• VOTE PROHIBITION PfRST, trusting to luck that State Control will* follow, the only solution, the only method by which this troublesome problem can be settled is^by State Purchase 1^ and State Control. Due, however, to the manipulations of both parties, or factions, the possibility of the issue of State Purchase and State Control having a majority of the votes recorded, and thus, becoming the law of New Zealand, is rather remote, and the only alternative left to the worker is to vote for Continuance, or at any rate to vote against Prohibition, m the hope that the feeling which has overcome the great temperance reformers of Great Britain will pervade the spirits of the Prohibs. In New Zealand, .that is to say, bring them to the recognition of the fact that Prohibition is impossible.

To arrive at this conclusion' has been as the swallowing of a bitter pill by the English Temperance Reformers, and one of the latest converts to the cause of State- Control is the well-known; Social Reformer, Lady Henry Somerset, who recently expressed the following opinion on the attempt of Americans to introduce Prohibition m the spirits of the Prohibs. m New ■ For thirty years I have been working m th,e temperance cause, with the sole idea of getting a sober England. I am convinced that to force Prohibition now means that all the work of these years will be undone, t and that we should achieve' a barren nothing. The campaign will set public opinion dead against the temperance—the real temperance — movement. Prohibition means conducting the fight on sentimental instead of on practical grounds. That has too often, been attempted and has been the cause of so little having ever been achieved. Again, she says: I am certain that this country would never tolerate Prohibition. Anyone who has lived as I have among the people, whether they be Midland operatives or East End folk, or Welsh or north-country miners, ■will tell you the same. It would be impossible to force it. It is a distinct infringement of liberty which this country, at any rate, will not have. It is impossible to imagine it coming into force. If it did so by chance it would be recinded. Publlo opinion would be too strong against it. What Lady Henry Somerset says of Great Britain applies with equal force to the Dominion. Now Zealand would never tolerate Prohibition, and it would be impossible to/enforce it.