Corporate Control

NZ Truth, Issue 936, 3 November 1923, Page 3

Corporate Control

j SYNOD ON SINS AND BOOZE. '• (From "Truth's" Auckland Rep.) Last year the Auckland Anglican Synod was split on the question ot j prohibition, although a resolution m favor thereof was carried, but since the defeat of the "Drys" m. the referendum, the clergy, or many of them, are warm m advocacy of corporate control. Tb,e matter was again before the. conference of clergy last week, when a resolution was discussed at ttie instance of Canon Williams, urging" the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise to - introduce drastic reforms m the liquor traffic, recommending corporate control, and asking that the Synod 1 should express its opinion on the subject m no uncertain voice. In moving the resolution, Canon Williams said that Mr. Masseyhad declared it was "ho good tinkering with the question," and that if prohibition was not carried, the Government intended to make very drastic reforms m tEe licensing laws. Archbishop MaeMurray expressed disapproval of corporate control. He declared that it would never restrict the power of the drink traffic, and that any encouragement to half-way measures would defeat the prohibition movement and more firmly establish the liquor trade, which was just what some people .wanted. In further discussion the very broad hint was made that corporate* control was BACKED BY THE BREWERY MERGER, and that its advocates, clerical, or . otherwise knew of the that fact, but > t others of the clergy pretended to be very indignant at the suggestion, v and the Rev. J. Gordon Bell said that all that was /wrong with the corporate control proposal was that it did not go. far enough. The chief defect of the present system, he considered, was that it was found difficult to reach and deal with publicans who broke the law. Corporate control was also opposed toy Mr. C. Hudson, one of the lay members of the Synod, who declared that mere amendment of licensing laws was absolutely inadequate.. In fact, Mr. Hudson wants to give booze the bounce altogether, and, is quite undeterred by the last licking sustained by the "Drys." "With corporate control we might get cheaper ibeer and more of it," he declared, "but we would not reduce the crime and suffering that are so inseparable from the liquor ■ traffic." , ' Attempts at prohibition m other countries "having met with indifferent success and succeeded only m raising A STORM OF DEFIANCE," the Rev. Mopckton supported corporate control, declaring it was of no use making laws which would be 'defied, as they were m the United States — "which should be a lesson to us," said the Rev. Monckton. Canon James steered a> middle course, and repudiated the claim of the authors of the pamphlet "A Challenge Answered" that they spoke for the Church. He reckoned that the proposals for corporate control could only hold ground because there was nothing else before the country. Rev. Gordon Coates was out-and-out for prohibition. He considered it would be a most serious thing for the Church to express itself m favor of any particular reform excepting the reform of total prohibition. Then spoke my lord the Bishop, who did not favor the proposals (because m his opinion they did not give .any promise of drastic reform, and because he totally '-disagreed with the principle of making the State a party to the drink traffic. No, he couldn't see that corporate control was going to lessen . the misery caused by the demon drink, and for that reason he was against it. An amendment to include the word ' "Prohibition" iwas rejected, and the Synod carried the first portion of the motion, urging the Prime 'Minister t.o get amove on m bringing about ."•drastic reforms'' m the booze- business.' The advocacy of corporate control was not supported.