LICENSING REFORM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19196, 12 June 1924, Page 8

LICENSING REFORM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —In your issue o£ the 7th inst. Mr J. A. U. Adams draws a very distressing picture of. the working man and hie lamily. It is Uie working man they are all concerned about—not lor his social weltare, but as to who is to get the expenditure ot his money, sticn as no has, wmch is not very much these times. 'ihe picture might have been accepted M years ago, but today we are living under entirely different conditions, ihe worker receives his pay once a iortnight; he finishes work at 3 p.m.; the hotels close at 6 p.m.; he iias one hour left to get there and do the deed, iiere I quote some statistics for JdiitZ thai dispose entirely of Mr Auams'B picture. Out of M 3 cases lor divorce in the whole of New Zealand there were tnree petitions on the ground of drunkenness, J.U un account of drunkenness and cruelty, and four on account ot failure to maintain, 'ihis is the sum total of what the prohibitionists are concerned about. Then they say the brewers want money ana the wholesale merchants want money ;—in fact, everybody except the prohibitionist, who does not require any because he has nothing to spend it on. Mr Auanis quotes certain indiviuuals as having left fortunes. Ihe people wno suouiu be wealthy to-day are the prohibitionists, and the moderates should be poorj according to their own theory. We have the siory ot the thread manufacturer leaving an estate worth £3,000,000, about which Mr Adams says there .were strong comments at the time. What analogy there is between a profiteer thread manufacturer and a man pursuing happiness I fail to see. There is a wiae difference between pursuing happiness and profiteering. Man today is compelled to adapt himself to certain conditions that exist through force ot circumstances, and he is entitled to make the best ot it in "is own way. the prohibitionists overlook the fact that the working man's liberty must be conserved, and if they do not like tiie brewer and publican lei, the- trade be placed on some other basis and live and let live.—l am, etc., June 10. M. H. Seddon. Sia,—ln my last letter I expressed my admiration tor Mr Adams's consistent hostility to the abuse of alcoholic drink, but expressed my opposition to his advocacy cf'total prohibition, in my humble opinion prohibition ia contrary to the teaching of Christ and opposed to the example He set. He was and is the greatest reformer the world will ever see, and if His example was followed and His teaching adhered to then the world would be all that God intended it to be; but the absolute prohibition of wine which is alcoholic forms no part of Christ's teaching. That the wine of His day was intoxicating we have abundant evidence, both from the Old and New Testaments. Christ endorsed the Ten Commandments as being a sufficient guide for 'our conduct through life, but he gave u» another which is a concise synopsis of all the rest, and an interpretation of the .whole —namely. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and love thy neighbour as thyself. If the total prohibition of wine was intended, how is it not commanded that thou shalt drink no wine nor any other intoxicating drink? Christ never condemned the innocent pleasures, but he insistently condemned the abuse of them. In fact, He often assisted to make and give pleasure. He never prayed for the removal of temptations, but for grace to resist them. This is fighting the good fight and becoming conquerors through Him that loves us. If there were no temptations to resist there would be no need for that self-denial which is the verv essence of Christianity.—l am, etc., " A - IRWIN - East Taieri, June 11. gj B Mr Andrew Irwin's condemnation of ."e principle of prohibition would have boon of more value if he had shown on what grounds he considered such a measure impracticable. There is too much unreasoning condemnation of prorubition without adequate proof. Continually we hear men and women expressing doubt as to the possibility of prohibition causing an improvement in the evils that attend the sale of alcoholic drink, but never do we hear clar, convincing argument to justify these doubts. Therefore since Mr Irwin has taken upon himself to condemn prohibition, it is only right that ho should give some details showing in what way (in his opinion) the proposed prohibition law would be a failure. Many others have from tuno to time endeavoured to show that were prohibition carried it would be a failure, but never have the arguments stood honest icri-'iination. If. therefore. Mr Irwin can produce arguments against prohibition which will ixia.r the closest examination and criticism, without losing their force, he will be doing u s all a service. I would like to remind Mr Irwin that, oven supposing it is axlmitted, for the sake of argument, that the love of money is a greater evil than drink, this would be no reason against our attacking the lesser of the two evils now, and possibly eliminating the second (and greater, according to Mr Irwin) at some future time. WouJd Air Irwin contend that, since we cannot to-day change human nature in regard to thieving and kindnrd vices, the laws which aim at curbing these evils are useless? Jt seems to mo that we are more likely to reach our goal, and in a shorter time, it wo take these evils as they come and not Foek to revolutionise human nature complete.lv in one sweep. Prohibition is looker] upon bv many as a sweeping change, but it is really only one aspect in the struggle for a better world. Prohibition of alcoholic liquor as a bovernge would not n.<her in the millennium, but it can be safely said without fear of contradiction that prohibition would in a great measure help us toward a realisation of the ideal condition? we hope will obtain s ome day. it is only such gradual changes for the better, as prohibition -would mean, that will eventually enable us to reach our goal, and any attempt to change tiresent conditions in one sweep, such as Mr Irwin contemplates, would certainly result in failure. Finally, the prohibition proposal is a concrete example of what has and can be done, while suoh changes as your correspondent advocates are mere theories which have net so far beon provod practicable, and must therefore be viewed with some doubt. —I am, etc., LiBKRTr. .

INDUSTRY AND POLITICS. TO THE KDITOK.

gxa,—ln your issue of June 6, Professor Woodlhorpe theorises to a conspicuous degree upon the futility of trade unionism witnoui giving any sound explanation as lo wtiy the etlorts ol these bodies have not met with tne success they merit. trade unionism of to-day is working under two heads— industrial unionism and crattunionism. Tho former is far the strongest, and this contradicts tho theory that trade union action which perchance forces up wages dees so at tne expense ot what Professor Woodltiorpe prelers to call the unorganised workers. Every trade unomst knows that the non-unionists reap where the unionists have sown, and m view of the fact that there are trade organisations that cater lor all and sundry it requires something more than a bald assertion to prove that the organised workers profit temporarily at the entire expense of tho unorganised. Trade uu-oii enort has merely enaoled labour to hold its own. By the term “hold, its own” f refer to the reduction of the hours of labour and the better all-round social conditions that govern tho masses. With regard to labours share of tho wealth that labour (hand and brain) produces, manual labour has not procured a Larger share of the ever-increasing wealth. This does not prove the futility of craft and industrial unionism but rather scorns the idea of " a better division of surplus profits.” Whenever in the history of capitalism did capitalists admit surplus ■profitsV Such profits would have to be determined by statute, which would possibly endow a few favoured workers, on the assumption that the statute was practical and evasion proof.

The gist of the professor’s contribution is: . . . “Now, you trade unionists, throw in the towel, you have been thrashed in every round, and you cannot possibly score a knock-out.” Unless I am very wide of the mark, labour is being punched all round the ring, but there is consolation in the fact that labour is yet a novice, and it is only due to the efforts of trade unionists that labour has been admitted into the ring and allowed to endeavour to return punch for punch. Such is the position of capital and labour all the world over. It is to be regretted, but, who is to blame? Presentday capitalists in many instances are bettor inclined to labour than their predecessors, but the very system of capitalism is such that capitalists are not masters of their own house. The system lends itself to such abuse that it is not unfair only to labour, but to capitalists as well. Whilst millions are made on the Stock Exchange, and by unnecessary middlemen, many of our manufacturers and primary producers are just managing to keep their heads above the surf. For this invaribaly they blindly blame labour. Let the capitalists that are essential to our present system put their house in order; rid it of the drones and useless parasites. Then, perhaps, the surplus profits might become available for distribution to the real partners of capital Professor Wdodthorpe expresses surprise at labour refusing the overtures of certain capitalists. He cannot understand working men casting aside co-partnership schemes, Whitley Committees, etc. A brief study of the industrial history of England alone would lift the veil. l'he chaos of Russia is not the direct handiwork of Lenin, but the aftermath of centuries of tyranny ami op pression, and a similar system of tryanny and unbridled corruption if it wore possible and wore practised here would bring its Lenins and Trotskys to New Zealand. The majority of political oconcanists of the professor class cannot sec any evil beyond that of the working man. The streams of capitalism to them are pure waters until polluted by the incoming flood trf labour. I venture to suggest that without labour the stream of capital would become a stagnant pool, and the pollution of that stream is due to the vile tributaries that flow from the ranks of capital. Mention is made of the risks taken by capital. Capital as. a system takes no risks. Private captalists who lose their capital are “the exceptions that prove the rule.” Economics denies that capital as a system takes risks other than its own overthrow through utter selfishness. Hence, capital in its collective capacity accumulates, whilst many of its rank and file live extravagant and luxurious lives. Reading of the trials and tribulations of capital, a perfect outsider would be inclined to ponder before accepting the responsibilities of wealth. For the sake of an explanation, let. me assume that I inherit £IO.OOO. Now, not being of a gambling nature, and being none too energetic. I invest it for safety in a gilt-edged security at 5 per cent. at. par. That is being anything but ambitious. If for 20 years I draw the full interest and spend it all I have without a moment’s toil or anxiety received in interest the £IO,OOO back again, consumed it, and yet I still have it safely invested. This is due to the efforts of labour, which is indeed entitled to a larger share of the wealth it continually produces in conjunction with the tools that capital provides for it through other labour. I remember reading during the war of certain buyers for the Government making huge profits. They were capitalists, and during the war period they amassed fortunes greater than the total salaries of the Premier, the Admiral of the B’leet, and the Commander-in-Chicf of the British corces. Such anomalies are rife throughout the present system, although they express themselves in various and different ways. Until such lime as capita! sees fit to rearrange its own edifice, the muchdesired schemes of co-operation will never appeal to intelligent labour. Labour realists that the co-partnership fad can apply only to certain grades of labour, and the casual labourer, . who most needs a dividend. would not get it. Last, and l>v no means least, the co-partnership prontise is vague at its best, or, seeing that wages are but a medium of exchange, a so-called share in the profits could be balanced by increased prices, and at the end of the year the workman would find that his dividend was mortgaged to the storekeeper. The only road to more is to produce more by reorganising industry on such lines instead of having one man producing and about three other men juggling with his products, and each of the three getting more for their higgling. than the skilled 'worker gets for his labour, the order would be reversed, and real wealth would flow like water if capital so desires I purposely write ‘‘if capital so desires because, whilst 1 advocate increasing the number of producers, I read to my dismay of thousands of workless men and women who cannot lie absorbed because of a something which not, even our foremost economists will explain. Lack of capital? Whether or no in the event of war there would he no lack of capital. The wiseacres would talk of national bankruptcy, but the necessary would come along, and the i c would be no shortness or hesitation on the money market until peace was signed and the citizen armies demobilised.--! am. etc., Herbert E. Childs. Kurow, June B.