LICENSING REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19182, 27 May 1924, Page 2

LICENSING REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Saturday's issue aenounces a new association for lieens'ng reform, and its most notable feature is the advent of a new defender of the faith in the person of the Bishop of Dunedin. This is the most notable accession to the interests of the trade for many years past. The trade will value beyond price the bishop’s opinion that “the liquor trade is as legitimate as any other business.” Hero is the very odour of sanctity for those whose business has been condemned by practically every ministry in the land. Let us contrast the bishop’s opinion with the indictment of drinking ascribed to St. Augustine, which refers to it as “the mother of all mischief, the root of crime, the spring of vices, the whirlwind of the brain, the ruin of the body, the wreck of chastity, the plague and corruption of the soul.” Apart from his legitimisation of the trade the bishop’s most remarkable statement is that prohibition is essentially wrong in. principle. I shall bo surprised if that statement can be supported, but perhaps the bishop will give us his reasons and at the same time let us know what, he really moans. What principle is controverted by the prohibition of the liquor trade or of any other noxious thing? The new association has declared by resolution that there are “three fundamental questions” involved in the licensing issue, of which their own reform is one. * Questions which are fundamental must be different from one another; and clearly the difference between them must also be fundamental. Lorporate control is, therefore, fundamentally different from continuance. How then can one justify the present situation under which the votes on the middle issue are added to the votes for continuance in order to defeat nrohibition ? Perhaps Dr Richards can extricate his association trom tins dilemma. . , The formation of the new society is also an opportune lime for a statement of the reforms which corporate control would usher in. It is intended to be “a reasonable attempt to grapple effectively with the Question.” What reforms docs it promise. What evils will it remove? I have read the petition to Parliament without finding a satisfactory answer to these questions. The new association has commenced its career with a demand for a “redistribution of redundant licenses.” This sounds well, and the meaning is cleverly hidden away m stately words. There are remote villages in various parts of the dominion where the number of licenses is in excess of trade requirements, two or more hotels being found where the population cannot absorb more liquor than could be sold under one roof. The proposed , “redistribution” would move these licenses, harmless because redundant,” from their quiet obscurity, and would bring them into our pcnulous centres. The advantage to the trade is obvious, but the public will want to know how many of these “redistributed” licenses the bishop hopes to secure for his own diocese and vhat improvement they will bring to it. These proposals can mean only one of two tlrngs. Either those who drink now will drink more if more licenses are available in populous centres, or more people will drink than is now the case. to the bishoo’s liicp position m the Church it is also r’ght to inquire how far the Church is officially concerned m this matter. So far ns I am aware not <i siivde Synod of the Church has approved the corporate % control proposal, while on the other hand a majority of the Synods supoorted prohibition prior to the last poll. No‘ doubt it is true, as Mr Armstrong stated, that the new association was formed at. a conference convened by certain Anglican clergymen of Auckland who proposed the scheme in the first place. Rut are your readers aware that the members cf the conference wore the representatives of the associated clubs, the Moderate League, the brewers, the wholesale wine and spirit merchants. the retail hotelkeepers, and the freehold owners of licensed houses? The representation of the Church consisted of four members of the Auckland Synod. When such a conference sets out to reform the trade we see Satan reproving sin. Truly some members of an honoured Church appear (o bo keeping strange company nowadays. I have not dealt with more than a part of what calls to be said in relation to the New Z°aland Licensing Reform Association, but will await with interest a further statement bv Dr Richards, who will no doubt be prepared to give reasons for the faith (hat is in him.—l am, etc., H. S. Adams. Dunedin, May 26.