EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXV, Issue 9793, 19 March 1908, Page 1

EDITORIAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Thf. conference of the no-license orgauisa- | t'.on lias, in Auckland, carried unanimousj ly a resolution affirming tlie principle of : a PP'y'"(» tne bare majority to tlie polling j in relation to the drink question. This is no mere whim of the moment. At every similar conference the same action has been, taken, as though the drinking habits of a people could be checked by a resolution and a law. The leaders of the no-license movement do Jiot, or will not. comprehend that siioli a thorough revolution in popular custom can lie achieved as simply as the return of a memlier to Parliament,. This view is utterly contrary to common sense and experience. If drink v \vere abolished by a bare majority, either in a district or tlie whole country, frhe public sentiment would, it may reasonably lie feared, be so weak that "it might be restored at the succeeding poll. The people would be in. constant unrest. Agitators on both sides of the question would keep the public mind in a slate of perpetual excitement, and a temperance triumph might be reversed on the first opportunity for again appealing to the voleis. .Nothing could be more damaging to tt.i' interests which the no-license chain. pi: lis desire to serve. There would be exceeding' danger that the advantages of liquor abolition would not be given a fair trial before a reversion to the old order. KVery plausible argument known to the enemies of the no-license cause I would be used in an attempt to shew that the endeavor to improve the condition of society by shutting out alcoholic liquors was productive of more evil than good. However empty such arguments might I.e. they would" be accepted as gospel by large numbers of persons who had heeii favorable to the no.license cause and who were prepared to stand by it so long as abolition proved to be effective in its operation. For these reasons we n.ie convinced that it is folly to insist, as inlicense organisations arc doing, that the question or License or no-license should be settled at the polls by a bare majority. Those who see that liie three-firths majority gives an assurance of satisfaction and permanence will not, however, fear that any Legislature New Zealand is likely to set up will gram the foolish demand for a change in the substantial and sale balance by" which no-iici-nsc is to be achieved. To demand the application of the bare majority to the liquor polls may make the demand that the no-license s-.-ii-iiment of the country is weak, and that the experience of tin,si- communities that have tried tile experiment of drink abolition has not been such as to induce other communities to follow suit. And yet it i.-, continually being claimed by no-license advocates"that the country is rapidly advancing towards universal prohibition by means of local option.

A cnvi-ioii-oit.wiv opposes tin- jn-ii-.c-ijiU> of a threc-lit'ths majority mi the license polls in these terms :- -"A. district inay. n.s the outcome ot .a sudden gust <>i' enthusiasm, decide upon :i course or action which, in a iii (if remorse, il may reverse a; tinart we ever were, opposed tu tin- application or tlit liiiri' majority tu decide the ririiik issue, we take leave to say that our contemporary has reversed the sentiment which would" actuate voters for ami against that issue. It is remorse which is behind ilie vote anainst .drink, whilst tin itu'■easoning gnst of enthusiasm, it one can apply such a term to fatuous [oily, ini-_iht he taken as the motive for any'restoration of tile accursed tiling. The same journal savs:--- . . . "there llliiv lie some ijiiesuon wheiher it is desirable'that a Dominion vote -mi the no-license issue should he superimposed on the local option polls-whether, that is to say, if the greater issue its. to lie the stilijeet of a vote, the 'lesser issue should not he withdrawn." We should, like to see the loupe ,„■ il.i.s idea demonstrated. The majority of the opponents of no-license declare thai thev would he agreeable to the abolition of drink if it w;ere made universal. If they he silicon;, they can accomplish univcrsa'l abolition without taking awav the right of local option, which might, indeed, achieve the- desired end hv slow • stages when the universal prohibit i'oii vote 'might tail.- It cannot he ignored that there arc communities in Xew Zealand that are not yet ripe for drink abolition. These , (immunities might check for years the noliicuse aspirations of other communities, and it would he unwise .to. endeavor to force them l'iv the weight of Voting' in other districts" to he abstainers. . 'Hiose who disagree with the hare majority vote because of. the necessity for a strong public opinion and prefer universal prohibition i'o lie-.i 1" option, must see that sin h coercive treatment-of the districts whose people are not favorable to about ion would end in the .failure thev desire to -avoid. 'lhere i.s no reason why' the people should net have the. op> ion of voting for either 1.a.-ai or general prohibition, or- Uttli,,. and thei-v who'do not tear the people's verdict will 1 agree with this view.