THE LICENSING POLL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23637, 22 October 1938, Page 21

THE LICENSING POLL

ro THE EDITOR

Sir,—l am astounded at the obviously unreasonable attitude presented in your sub-leader in Tuesday’s paper concerning the licensing poll. It is amazingly Inconsistent with the attitude you have adopted in connection with the political election. You suggest that because the Prohibition vote represents only 30 per cent, of the number of votes recorded in the licensing poll, the voices of those opposed to the liquor trade should be for ever silenced. True it is that the majority for continuance was overwhelming, but is that sufficient reason for your attitude? This is a democratic country, and even the minority is entitled to express its opinion through the referendum. Otherwise, why do you not also argue that because the Labour Party has such an overwhelming majority in the newly-elected Parliament, the Nationalists and'lndependents should be denied the right to what is a completely ineffective representation. Because you believe that public opinion will change, and that there are prospects of a Natidnalist victory on some future occasion. Now, is it not also conceivable that public opinion can change on the licensing question, and that at some future poll prohibition will be carried by a decisive majority, just as you had hoped for a Nationalist victory in the present election? No. you would not dare to express that opinion, because there is too much vested interest in the liquor trade. On your own argument the issue for State purchase and control should have been deleted from the ballot paper years ago. The support given for that issue has never represented more than a mere fraction of the votes recorded. But in 1919. or 1922, or 1925, or 1928, did your paper ever suggest, or sponsor a movement to have the State control clause removed from the ballot paper? No. because you know as well as the liquor interests know, that if this had been deleted, then in a straight-out issue, a good number of votes recorded for State control would have supported ttye prohibition interests, and prohibition would probably have been carried years ago. Furthermore, you have continued to believe, as your comment on the political election indicated, that the National Party represents the onlv satisfactory policy for the government of this country, even although that party is decidedly in the minority at the present time. Is it not, therefore, just as conceivable that the prohibition supporters, although In the minority. have the only satisfactory programme for the welfare of this country in so far as the liquor question is concerned? If you are to be consist' ent, you cannot argue otherwise. And yet you advocate the abolition of this issue altogether from the ballot box. So much for your idea of democracy! The voices of at least 30 per cent, of the voters still claim the right to express their opinion in this democratic way.

You would gain more respect, and serve the country better, if you initiated a campaign for social and moral welfare, instead of offering such gratuitous support to the vices and corruptions of the vested interests of the liquor trade.—l am. etc., C. MacKenzle. Tuapeka Mouth. October 18.