The Otago Witness. (WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1919.) THE WEEK.

Otago Witness, Issue 3395, 9 April 1919, Page 36

The Otago Witness.

(WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 1919.) THE WEEK.

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTHERN MERCURY.

"Nunquam allud natnra, allud sapientia dixit" «—JtJVMTAL. . "Good nature and good sense must ever join."— POPE.

For the moment, so far as public opinion is concerned, the tremendous happenings in Europe take second place to the . prohibition poll to be taken to-morrow, when the people of New Zealand are called upon to decide whether the existing system under which alcoholic beverages are sold under license shall be continued or ended. The remarkable thing in to-morrow's contest is that, bv an arbitrary act of Parliament, an important question, involving what has been dubbed a social custom of age-long prevalence," is to be decided upon an issue which does not. satisfy either the principals to the dispute or even the majority of the general public, many of whom are faced by the alternative either of voting against their sincerest convictions or of being disfranchised altogether. The blame or the submission of so incomplete and unsatisfactory an issue must be laid against both Government and Parliament, who, rather than face the question in a bold and statesmanlike manner, took refuge in a compromise. To arrive at a just 'computation of the present position, it may be helpful to attempt to analyse the issues. The antagonists in the contest on which the vote is to be taken to-morrow are the prohibitionists on the one side and the liquor trade and those who use alcoholic beverages on the other; and the issue to be decided—viz., national continuance or national prohibition with compensation—is the result of a compromise between the two parties. The time compensation, under which four years had to elapse between the carrying of prohibition and its coming into force, has been eliminated, and its place taken by a provision for money compensation not exceeding £4,500,000 with immediate prohibition if carried. And tha decision to-morrow will be reached by a bare majority in place oi the three-fifths majority hitherto imposed. The issue thus presented, however, satisfies neither of the parties more immediately concerned. The liquor trade resents the Introduction of this special' poll, even although the sop of money compensation

The Prohibition Poll.

has been introduced. The prohibition party, on their part, has been forced to asservj to the payment of money compensation, despite their* repeated asservations that the trade has no legal or moral right to such consideration. Leaving aside these main combatants and coming to the position of the large section of the public who are more or less neutral, a still more unsatisfactory state of affairs is revealed. The man who is not satisfied, either with the existing system of license under .private ownership or with the other extreme oi prohibition, but who favours some method of State control, finds himself either debarred from voting or-is driven into voting for a thing xn which he does not wholly believe. The same is true of the man who, while desiring to put an end to the hotel bar,' does not approve of the principle of compensation. As a matter of fact, there are, we believe, even at the eleventh hour, a large section of the people who are uncertain exactly,as to how they ought to vote. With many of them it is a choice between two evils, of which they desire to choose the least.

The poll to be taken to-morrow, and which is exciting such widespread interest, invites reference to the history of the licensing legislation in New Zealand during the past 26 years, and of the fierce and bitter controversies and contests arising therefrom. It was in 1893 that the late Mr Richard Seddon conceived the idea of removing the liquor controversy from the immediate control of Parliament and handing it over to the decision of the people. There ensued that series of triennial local option polls, which accompanying every general election; too often transcended in interest the important direct political issues and introduced a discordant element into the party fight. Although the no-license vote gradually increased in volume, from the initial total of 48,993 in 1894 to the grand total of 234,676 in 1911, the net result was that only some 12 out of a total of 76 electorates went "dry" in the course of 17 years. At the same time, however, the '"reduction" vote was responsible for the extinction of a large number of licenses and the consequent closing down of a corresponding number of hotel bars. Dissatisfied with the slow progress made, the prohibition party agreed in 1908 to- the elimination of the reduction issue and its replacement by a vote on national prohibition. The first vote on this new issue was taken in 1911, when 259,943 votes were recorded in favour of, and 205,661 votes against national prohibition; but, inasmuch as the law provided for a threefifths majority, the 54,282 votes polled for prohibition in excess of the counter-vote was not sufficient to carry the day. The second vote on national prohibition was taken in November, 1914, in the early days of the war, when the result recorded was: For national prohibition, 240,540; against national prohibition, 246,468, or a majority against prohibition of 5928. This fluctuation in public opinion has been variously accounted for; but, from whatv ever reason, the fact remains that in the short space of three years some 60,000 voters had swung from prohibitionist to anti-prohibitionist views. It -is this history . which invests the present contest with such intense interest. There are on the rolls to-day thousands of young men and women who have never voted before; and, assuming that the vast majority of the older voters are not likely to change their opinions, t*ie decision to-morrow rests largely with young New Zealand. In the interests of all concerned it is to be'hoped that the vote will be a decisive one. There are circumstances in the case which would render it little short of calamitous if the decision be made by a slender majority. If, on the other hand, the opinion of the oeople be expressed by a bumper majority either on the one side or the other, it may be hoped that the Dominion, for a while at least, may have peace from liquor controversy and that Parliament and the people will be able unhindered to address themselves to the grave problems ofeyeconstruction which everywhere await solution.

The Record of the Past.

Assuming the possibility that the result of the poll will be the carrying of prohibition, it may be well to point out that this -would be but the beginning, and not the end, of the question. J2ven although the majority may decide to vote for the prohibition of -the liquor traffic, it remains to be seen whether, in the existing state of public opinion, it -will be possible to effectually enforce the law. And upon the effectual or ineffectual enforcement of the law the permanence of prohibition will undoubtedly rest. This doubt regarding permanence reveals the weakness of the cc%3- for compensation ; it would be deplorable in the extreme, after the taxpayers of the Dominion had provided a sum of £4,500,000 as compensation to the trade, if? after a brief interval, a handsomely compensated trade were allowed to set up in business aeain. Such an eventuality, however, may be dismissed as improbable, since, should prohibition prove in practice a failure, some system of State control would doubtless be substituted, in which case, there being no trade in existence, the expense of buying out the trade would be avoided. In regard to the enforcement of the law, there are already in Canada and in America, "where some measure of prohibition is at present in force, evidences that the liquor trade intends to tes'b the question by every means "in its power; and, bearing in view the extensive money interests at stake, the test is likely to be a severe one. In many respects New Zealand presents an ideal 'field for a prohibition experiment, its insular position giving it an isolation which Canada nor America possess. Morever, if to-morrow's vote be favourable to public opinion will be in favour of giving the experiment a fair trial: and this in itself means a great deal. Naturally, there will be infringements of the Prohibition Law, as there are of other laws; but the result of the experiment must be judged in the aggregate and not from Individual excep-

Prohibition and Enforcement.

tions. The carrying of prohibition in New Zealand should provide some extremely valuable data for sociologists and psychologists. In the first place it should go a long way to decide whether the British race can live a normal, healthy, happy existence apart from all alcoholic beverages ; it should also help to prove whether total abstinence from alcohol makes for national efficiency, for industry and thrift, and what is its relation to crime, disease, and insanity. Such data, to be impressive, must be taken over a lengthy period, since hastily drawn conclusions are apt to be delusive. At least New Zealand under prohibition—should to-morrow's vote prove favourable to that issue and the change take place on June 30 next—will for a long time to come, be a happy huntingground for social investigators and reformers.

Seeing that the result of to-morrow's poll swings in the balance, it may be well to consider the alternative should continuance, and not prohibition, be in the ascendant. In the event of the advocates of continuance being in the majority, the Act provides for another poll to be taken in connection with the general election, which in all likelihood will be fixed during the present year. At this second poll three issues will be submitted to the electors—viz., national continuance, State control, and national prohibition without compensation,—and the Act provides that any one issue, to be carried, must have a majority of votes over the other two. The alternatives here presented to the voter are not much more satisfactory to the average man than in the poll to be taken to-morrow. To be true to genuine democratic principle, Parliament should have provided for the submission, under a system of preferential voting, of the four issues of continuance, prohibition with and without compensation, and of State purchase and control. Under the provisions of the Act, the poll, if taken at the general election, is likely to lead nowhere, since, after all the expense incurred, things will probably remain as they are. There is, of course, the bare possibility that the advocates oi prohibition without compensation may prevail or that State control may carry the day; but the handicap imposed is so severe that probabilities point to continuance being victorious. Another point to be considered in connection with this controversy is that, in the event of prohibition being carried to-morrow, no other vote can betaken except under fresh legislation. And the same holds true of. the carrying of prohibition or State control at the general election poll. Only so long as continuance is carried the polls go on for ever under the existing law.

The Alternative.