GAMBLERS BY LAW

NZ Truth, Issue 882, 21 October 1922, Page 5

GAMBLERS BY LAW

Three Years' Liquor Polls

Votes for prohibition m New Zealand may be aivided into two kinds — ' those who axe convinced that the f liquor trade is unreformable, and those -who are not (says a writer m. a Sydney paper). The former kind are the irreconcilable prohibitionists. The others are willing to take note of any effort of the trade to raise its own status. Considering the position narrowly from the standpoint; of the self-inter-est of the people whose funds-arein-vested m brewery, and. hotel property and ajjied legitimate business, it would assuredly be profitable to them, to place the trade oii a 'higher standard at all ' points, and so win votes to assure its continuance. Why, then, do they not seek their ,own profit? SHORT-TERM GAMBLES. The answer. seems 'to be that their ideas of pi-bfit-making do not coincide. Some people m the trade are long-term investors; some short-term. Some investors keep the same property for decades; others seek to turn it over at a profit within a few months. The latter are traffickers. When the market goes against the short-term investor, preventing him from turning an unprofitable hotel speculation over to "some other mug," • there is an obvious temptation to break down the liquor, also the law, to a point that is entirely dishonest, begets peculation, is disastrous to the good name of the trade; injures its customers, and alienates votes. Obviously, a recurring triennial poll on hon- compensated prohibition fosters the speculator, the hotel trafficker, the hotel broker who lives on trafficking, and the law-breaking licensee, who .has to squeeze out of his trade m short time, by fair means -»or foul, enough money to repay him for an , over-value purchase — m fact, for a gamble. • : The possibility of sudden death noncompensated prohibition, once m three years, must make for a gambling traffic m hotels. It cannot make for anything else. A tenure of from one to thirty-six months provides no bust- j ness'x basis whatever. BILL FOR LONG-TERM POLL. Now, consider again, the two classes Of prohibition voters. The irreconcil- j able is satisfied with a condition of things that, is adverse to self -reform within the trade, and which, more- • over, encourages the trade to degrade itself and commit suicide. He does not wish the trade to "come back." , But the other reconcilable class of prohibition voter, he who is willing to sympathetically regard self-reform within the trade, but who is tired of waiting for it, is" malleable material. What he needs is a reform that is conditional upon a longer tenure of the license to sell liquor, because under the short tenure of the recurring triennial poll the eradication of the gambling element is impossible. The reconcilable prohibition voter is probably not averse to lengthening the interval, between the licensing polls I from three to seven, or preferably ten, years. Unless the poll : m December kills the trade by carrying prohibition, [there will be a fight m the new Parliament to lengthen the interval between .polls, and ; thereby give legitimate long-term investment a chance < to squeeze out the gamblers, and to "put the house m order." BIG INTERESTS CULPABLE. If prohibition is not carried m December, a new legislative campaign will begin for the purpose of securing' [ a tenure of license that will give those who possess a permanent interest m the trade another opportunity to make good m the : eyes of the public, It would be idle to say that holders of 1 permanent stakes are guiltless, and that, if the birds of passage are elimi- | nated, all will "be well. Permanent interests are responsible fof the "tied house" evils. Reform, therefore, pre-supposes that the bigger interests are prepared to moderate, if not abolish, the tying tactics; that the brewers and toig stake-holders are prepared to order the co-partnership m such a way that it shall ibe the profit of all concerned to carry on the business as a permanent investment, and ag a public service, that can look public opinion m the face. Brewers, owners of hotel freehold, hotelkeepers, etc., need not become Marxian, but should give a ' serious business consideration to the syndicalist principle that "an injury to one is an injury to all." Also, an offence to the public conscience re-acts on their whole business.' The low class hotelkeeper is to nobody's advantage. He is sometimes a penny wise, but always a" pound foolish. * Moral: Unless Parliament wishes to take up the attitude of the irreconcilable prohibitionist, shutting the door on liquor trade reform, let it have nothing to do with a recurring triennial prohibition poll. Also, let the bigger interests m the trade be wise m time, and close their ranks. The alternative may be to close their doors.