CAPITAL V. LABOUR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18446, 6 January 1922, Page 3

CAPITAL V. LABOUR

FAULTS ON BOTH SIDES. • AN M.P.’Sf SENTIMENTS. (Feom Ouh Own Correspondent.) INVERCARGILL, January 5. ~ During an address to farmers at.Winton on the meat pool proposals Mr A. Hamilton, M.P. for Wallace, gave voice to some rather striking .sentiments, that found sympathetic echo, among his hearers. “I tell you,” he said, “it would be for the good of New Zealand and of the whole world if the Governments had courage to stand up arid fight the vested interests of Capital. We hear a great deal about the Red Feds, but never anything about the other extreme—the combines of Capital. It is all very well to decry extreme Labour, but it would be much bettor to decry extreme Capital, too, and strike a middle course. The first duty of the Government at the present time is to fight Capital, to. get it to come .down, and to fight Labour with the same object. We simply have to got back to the conception of work as a public duty. We want to let the dollar out of our vision., a little, and let service in. Th© financial institutions should come down in profit, and labour people work harder to-day. It is not right that the Bank of Now Zealand should pay dividends of 17i per cent., nor is it right that Labour should want to work, shorter hours. We must try to make the ends come nearer, and we shall get on much better." Mr Hamilton’s remarks were loudly applauded. PROHIBITION IN QUEBEC. TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —I read with much interest the column article in your issue this morning from the Spectator, dealing with Quebec and prohibition. As-1 presume it was published as news in the ordinary course of affairs, I feel you will be prepared to give 4< fche other side” a fair deal, 'and thus show you have, as I believe you have, a desire to i give both sides of the question and allow the public to come to a considered judgment on a large social problem. I therefore have pleasure in enclosing the following article from the Pioneer (Ontario, Canada), which came to hand this morning, and trust you- will find space to insert it and let your readers learn .what is thought by others on the question.—l am, etC "‘. A. Aitken, t Organiser N.Z. Alliance. Dunedin, January 5. It is marvellous the, solicitude that is being shown in some quarters to the teel-, ings of the people of the Province of Quebec, and the tender anxiety lest prohibitory i legislation be passed against the, will of our fellow-citizens in that province. But most. surprising of all is that prohibitionists should bo led astray through this specious cry, which is without justification. What are the facts? In the Province of Quebec, out 'of 1180 parishes and municipalities 1090 are under local prohibition, 4 and, as a whole, would welcome a dominion law* that would make more effective their own local laws and strengthen them in ■ trying to accomplish good through the medium of these laws. The liquor traffic in Quebec is to-day more rigidly controlled than it was in any other Province in Canada when prohibition was brought into force therein. The jar and disturbance of complete prohibition would not' be as great, therefore, as it was in other provinces. ‘ Of course it is said, “Look at Montreal,” But Montreal doee not voice.the soul of the province of Quebeo_ any more than did Toronto, .Hamilton, Windsor, and other cities in Ontario, 1 when they opposed prohibition, represent the mind of the people of Ontario, or Halifax the people of Nova Scotia, or St. John the poop e of New Brunswick, or Winnipeg the people of Manitoba, or Vancouver the people of . British Columbia. A majority in all these cities was opposed to prohibition, and it was carried by the sentiment in other parts over the heads of these citizens. This being the case, why should the Parliament of all Canada quail before the prospective vociferous protests against prohibition frouu Montreal liquor interests? There is not the slightest doubt that any advanced measure would be strenuously and bitterly opposed, but if laws were to wait for their enactment till there was no opposition to them, when would reform begin? As to the real voice of Quebec, contrasted with these surmises and fears might be set _ the .sturdy, straight-cut statement of the Honoured prelate who is to-day at the head of the Roman Catholic clergy in the' province of Quebec, Monsignor Roy, Archbishop of Quebec, who as recently as 1D.6 said: —

Archbishopric of Quebec, February 20, 1916. Dear Sir,—“This about my opinion of the Stevens motion: 1. The prohibition movement is serious, profound and irresistible. 2. The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in; the present conditions certainly constitute one of the worst plagues of the country. 3. Public opinion properly enlightened and directed, has expressed itself thereon with a clearness and a persistency which can leave no doubt. 4. To establish the prohibition regime in the rural parts and small towns, and have the trade free in the large centres, is a grave error and opposed to common sence5. The present war furnishes an excellent opportunity for the Government and Parliament to intervene to deliver us from a public plague and throw off the degrading yoke of the manufacturers and dealers in alcoholic liquors. 6. The 240 municipalities and? towns pf the diocese of Quebec have of their own : free will voted for prohibition. Alone, the City of Quebec stands as the supreme entrenchment of the enemy, driven away from everywhere else. Still, four-fifths of the population of Quebec want prohibition. Conclusion: The Parliament at Ottawa will meet the wishes of the very large majority of the Canadian people of it places the whole country under the beneficent regime of prohibition. Please accept, dear, sir, with my congratulations, the assurance of my personal esteem and of my entire devotion to the cause which you wish to serve. (Sgd.) P. E. Roy, Arch de Sel “Hon. Charles Marcil, M.P. Ottawa. When war-time prohibition was brought into force throughout Canada, Quebeo accepted it with as good grace as did any province in the dominion. Indeed, no distinction could be drawn between the loyalty of the provinces in their acquiescence in this regard. There is neither right nor reason in the attempt that is being made in soma quarters to rule British Columbia and Quebec out of Confederation in regard to prohibitory legislation. Why should they be ruled out regarding such legislation any more than, in regard to legislation dealing with the tariff or immigration or taxation? Things have come to a fine pass in Canada if, in dealing with a great national evil, wo cannot act as a united people;, if such be the case let us cease to call ourselves a nation. . . , As is well said in the manifesto recently issued ■ by the officers, of the Dominion Council of the Alliance: We submit that a national evil requires a, nation-wide remedy. Experience has conclusively shown that municipal prohibition could not be • made safe or fully effective while liquor was legally sold in other parts of the same province, and it was necessary to round out local -option by provincial prohibition. It is now being clearly seen that provincial forms of prohibition cannot bo, made safe or fully effective in any province in Canada while intoxicating liquor is legally trafficked in, or manufactured within, or i imported into, other provinces of Canada, and we must round out our provincial prohibition by a nation-wide law. In our opinion there would be less clanger of inter-provincial ill-will and friction from the operation of a prohibitory law applying uniformly to all Provinces than through the existing condition by which laws approved by great majorities in seven of the nine provinces, and favoured by substantial minorities in the other two provinces, are being vitiated and their good effects tq, some extent nullified through the legal ' systems which obtain in British Columbia and Quebec. ' National solidarity and interprovinoia! comity would, be aided by the enactment of a * nation-yvidc law that would comprehensively, effectively, and thoroughly deal with this whole question. The present sectional system is divisive and disturbing. ’