The Oamaru Mail. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1910.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10582, 11 October 1910, Page 3

The Oamaru Mail. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1910.

To the unthinking the appearance of a Licensing Bill at The Licensing Bill, this late period of the session is a surprise. But to those who have watched the course of events intelligently there is no surprise. The proposal to carry the existing policy a step further on the road to its legitimate object is the right thing to be expected from the Government which has shown itself determined to cope with the drink evil which all deplore. No-license represents the first step in the policy, and that 110-license has proved a success has been lately demonstrated with incontrovertible logic. The figures produced in Parliament in response to a question as to the value of the utterances of Mr Day, S.M., lnvve settled that point beyond cavil. Had there been any need for further demonstration after the answer to the question in the Council that demonstration was supplied by Mr Taylor's masterly comparison of the results of 110-license with the figures representing the general drink bill of the Dominion. It is well understood at the same time that the results of no-license, good as they are, might be very much better. One method of getting that betterment is by controlling the system of depots and lockers wliicli to some extent defeat the purposes of no-license. This method we are glad to see adopted in the Bill before the House now, on the lines of the recommendation we made the other day in our columns. But there remains the general question of total prohibition of the liquor trade. It has been borne in upon all thoughtful minds that unless the traffic is entirely prohibited many of the crying evils of drink will still be with us. Moreover the usefulness of no-license is impaired to some extent by its local character. The proposal for the total abolishment is resisted 011 the ground of interference with .private liberty. But the same objection applies to every moral reform, and such reforms have been carried out 011 the understanding of the solid rational truth that the general safety must over-ride private inclinations. Liquor is after all not a necessity of life. It is a luxury. Can a luxury bo maintained for the benefit of individuals when it works vast harm to the many? tlio question need only he risked to be answered. The modus operandi of the measure takes out all the sting of the reproaches levelled at it. ; Broadly speaking it makes nolicense and total prohibition go together as friends in the same cause. Progress in the direction of complete remedy may be slower tliaii before, but it will be surer. Moreover time is given for vested interests to arrange themselves for the coming thing. Lastly the thing is not a tyranny of individuals. It is dependent on the majority of a whole people. It proceeds, therefore, 011 established lines in n direction already used as a load by the reformer. Dominion prohibition '.s the logical consequence of local option. That lact is tlio basis of tlio measure now before the House and country. It may be debated fiercely and at great length. Probably it will bo debated in both senses. But the longest and the fiercest debates will equally fail to touch the basic argument that Dominion option.is the logical outcome ot local option. There is between the two only the question of degree. Whoever resists Dominion option must confine Ins argument to the question of degree. Tlio time for raising the question of principle is gone. It passed away when local option was placed 011 the Statute Book. That, fortunately for the Dominion, may be regarded as beyond doubt. We exhort the logical supporters of Temperance in its completeness to refuse to permit the question of principle to be raised ; confining the discussion to the question of extending the principle we already possess one degree further.