CASE FOR PROHIBITION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22628, 20 July 1935, Page 18

CASE FOR PROHIBITION

ALLIANCE OFFICIAL’S VIEWS APPEAL FOR PUBLIC SUPPORT Under the auspices of the New Zealand Alliance, the president of that body (the Rev. J. E. Blanchard) and the general secretary (Mr J. Malton Murray), who are at present on a tour of the Dominion conducting a campaign in the interests of prohibition, addressed a well-attended meeting in Burns Hall last evening. In the unavoidable absence of the Mayor the Deputy Mayor (Mr F. Jones, M.P.) .occupied the chair. Introducing the speakers, Mr Jones said it gave him great pleasure to see apeh a large gathering present for the purpose of listening to Mr Blanchard and Mr Murray, who were making a tour of the Dominion emphasising the necessity of voting for prohibition when the question came before tjie people at the next general election. As Deputy Mayor he extended to them a hearty welcome to Dunedin.'

Air Blanchard commenced with the contention that New Zealand had suffered financially and morally through the liquor traffic, and said that since the last licensing poll 25,475 convictions for drunkenness, 6344 prohibition orders, 1989 convictions for being drunk in charge of motor vehicles, 4178 convictions for offences committed while drunk, 2989 indecent assaults, and 2915 prosecutions of hotel-keepers for law-breaking were recorded. On an average, every second day a case of alcoholism had been treated in the hospitals; every sixth day there had been a death, whose assigned or contributory cause was alcoholism; every ninth day had seen an admission to a mental asylum for the same cause. Murders, suicides, poverty, broken homes, neglected children, the degradation of women and youth, in which liquor had been a, definite factor, were on record, and it was estimated that New Zealand was making drunkards at the rate of six a day. Such were the evils with which liquor was wedded. No amount of regulation had been able to divorce them. The New Zealand Alliance was appealing to the people to emancipate the Dominion from these dvils by removing the traffic. To prosper, the speaker continued, the liquor trade had to stimulate the consumption of what it sold. But such was the nature of what it sold that increased consumption meant increase in the resultant evil. The trade, however, did not consider that to be its concern, and while leading sportsmen and athletes of the world were advising young men and women not to drink the liquor trade was advertising drink as essential to athletic prowess and sporting success. When the hospitals of the world were reducing the use of alcohol to vanishing point the trade was advertising drink as a necessary daily tonic. Its only interest in doing so was to increase its sales and to swell fits profits. The more it succeeded the more would the nation have to pay the price in the, form of the evils which were already too prolific. Foreseeing this, the New Zealand Alliance had asked the proper authorities to suppress these misleading advertisements in the interests of public health, only to be told that it was not possible to do so. The history of the liquor trade in any country revealed the fact that its prosperity could not be reconciled with the prosperity of the nation. To protect itself, the State had always felt compelled to restrict [the trade. No trade had been the subject of so much restrictive legislation, and no trade had shown itself so unwilling to observe such laws. It resisted all legislation which impinged upon its interests. This it could do most effectively, in its opinion, by exerting control in politics. Whatever party had been in power, it had felt the power of liquor interests. When all the facts were considered, asked Mr Blanchard in conclusion, how else could the reduction of 3d per gallon in the excise on beer in 1934 be accounted for? Harassed business men, longing and asking for some relief in taxation, might well ask why the liquor business had been accorded such special favours. They had the answer to their question in their own hands and the remedy. They could free New Zealand from the jncubus of such a trade by voting against it when the day arrived. FAILURE OF REPEAL. Dealing particularly with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, Mr Murray said that official figures for the United States of America during the “ dry ” period of 1923 to 1931 showed that drunkenness increased by 77 per cent., nut statistics supplied by the police of 226 .cities and towns revealed that during the first year of repeal the increase of drunkenness, compared with the first year of prohibition, was 244.30 per cent., jo that, contrary to what had been promised by its sponsors, repeal had failed to make things better. It could also be shown that when the liquor traffic in the United States of America was outlawed motor fatalities had decreased by 50 per cent. i

Mr Murray went on to quote further statistics to prove that while crime due to drink decreased by 70 per cent, under prohibition the population of the gaols in the country had increased rapidly since the repeal of prohibition. He challenged the statement that repeal would relieve taxpayers and balance local, State, and national budgets, and emphasised the fact that the national debt of the United States, which was £200,000,000 before repeal, had increased to, four times this sum by the end of the first year after the repeal came into force. Moreover, the rolls'of the unemployed were fuller than ever, so that, as a measure of financial and economic relief, repeal Had proved to be a dismal failure. On the motion of the Rev. W. Hamblett, seconded, by the Rev. C. H. Olds, the speakers were accorded a hearty vote of thanks.