LIQUOR TRAFFIC CONDEMNED.

Otago Witness, Issue 3772, 29 June 1926, Page 7

LIQUOR TRAFFIC CONDEMNED.

.ARGUMENTS FOR PROHIBITION. That State purchase and control was as dead as a herring, and that no Parliament could be justified in leaving it on the ballot paper any longer, was one of several as sertions made on Wednesday by Mr H. S. Adams in the course of an address at the evening session of the annual convention ©f the Otago Area, New Zealand Alliance. Mr Adams also commented stronsrlv on the prevalence of after hours’ selling which he averred, existed at t.hn nrpsent time, and several other aspects of the liquor traffic, including the need for licensing reform, re ceived their share of criticism from Mr Adams and several other speakers. . “They talk of licensing in Wellington as if it were a nettle.” said Mr Adams, “and they are afraid to grasp that nettle. Since 1922 nothing has been done in the direction of reform. In 1922 we had three things at least—a poll that we should have won, but didn’t, a licensing report that favoured the trade, and a promise by the Prime Minister that legis ration would be brought down. That was on the eve of the poll, and the late Mr Massey renewed his promise after the but his death prevented his carrying it out ” Mr Adams referred to the frequency of licensing reports and added that another promise had been given in 1925 bv the Prime Minister, who had said that if prohi bition were not carried would look into the question of reform. That state of affairs, he asserted, could not be continued. They were entitled to t u "* pionnse of legislation should be fulfilled It was singular that while on all sides abuses were admitted and even the newspapers commented on them, saying this and I hat should he done, everything the New Zealand Alliance had suggested had been wrong

The speaker added that the aspect which was of predominant importance was the hours of sale. During the war it was found impossible to put the nation’s full strength into the war on account of the great drink problem, and the result "-ns that drastic regulations were framed. The hours of sale were reduced to five and a-half, and the effect was a very considerable reduction in intemperance No reform could be got, he contended, unless it aimed at the reduction of the consumption. *‘\Ve got 6 o’clock closing during the war,” said Mr Adams, “but we desire to see it made a fact as well as an entry on the Statute Book. We want to see the hotel bar shut from 6 o’clock at night.” The speaker then gave several instances of abuse* of the licensing regulations, and referred to a case in Wellington in which 70 men who had been drinking in a hotel bar after hours simply booked a room each for the night when the police came in, going without tea or breakfast, and the consequence was that the information was dismissed.

Mr Adams also argued the desirability of h aving only one bar. At, present the law allowed only one public bar, that was to say a bar opening on to the street, but there could be any number of indoor bars. The only logical end of liquor reform, however. was prohibition. What is known as “the middle issue,” 6r the State Purchase and Control issue, was also attacked. “Our whole objection to the middle issue,” Mr Adams said, “is that it attracts votes which would otherwise go to prohibition. Our opponents arc afraid of a poll without a third issue. As far as the issue of State purchase and control is concenied. it is as dead as a herring and no Parliament can be justified in leaving it on the ballot paper any longer.”

In support of Mr Adams’s remarks Mr R. W. Hall said that it could no be denied that the third issue was “a red herring to fool the people.” They expected that from the present Parliament there would be legislation in response to the wishes of those who were sick and tired of this traffic which was the greatest«problem this country or any other had to lace. He added that no betterment, could bo brought about until “this octopus which is dragging the people down and keeping them down,” was conquered. Mr Hall then moved-

“That this meeting of citizens of Dunedin and delegates from Otago held under the auspices of the New Zealand Alliance strongly endorses the legislative demands of the New Zealand Alliance and more particularly calls upon the Government and upon Parliament # to remove the issue of State Purchase and Control from the ballot paper and to provide that in future the issues of Continuance and Prohibition shall alone be submitted to the people and on a bare majority basis, and further, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minuter and to Otago Members of Parliament*

The motion was seconded by Mr James M'Xarcy. and carried unanimously.

“Ways and means of reaching the voter” wore gone into by Mr George A. Tuck who, in the course of his address, said that there wa3 no possible way of bringing about liquor reform except by the gradual education of the people of this country. ‘‘We have a mass of evidence, he said, “and our task is to make that evidence significant to the people of this country. Sneak to them in their own language. For instance, we should point out to the motor trade the bearing it has on its business. That has been done by many of the big motor manufacturing firms in the States. There is not room in America for both beer and benzine. Liquor and motor cars don’t mix there.”

The Rev. H. E. Bellhouse said that he did not think it was wise to insist too much on the reports of the success of prohibition in America. The main point was: as this reform right? Was it the will of God? Was the liquor traffic in the best interests of the people? If it was not, they were called upon to do their very best to strike it out of existence. Mr Bellhouse then moved the following resolution, which was seconded by Mr James Laing and carried:—“That this meeting expresses its hearty appreciation of the special efforts being adopted by the New Zealand Alliance in its educational campaign and wishes it all possible success.”

Several answers to the question, “Why fight on?” were advanced by Mr Charles 11. Edmond, of Wellington. The beverage use of alcohol, Mr Edmond said, was detrimental to boys and girls as they grew up, but there was a bigger reason than that. They had immortal souls to save. He did not say that to drink was a sin, but they knew that young men and women were separated from the best things in life because of this curse. They were fighting for an ideal, just as the Allies had fought for an ideal in the Great War, and had been carried through their trials and troubles by that ideal. The speaker added that he could not understand why the Labour leaders did not attack this traffic, which was one of the greatest combines in New Zealand, and, in fact, in the world. “Medical science is on our side,” he said, “logic is on our side, and there are moral reasons as well. The question is one of right or wrong, and the only way is to weigh the evidence, as in a court of law.” Mr Edmond went on to say that the world trend to-day was all towards the abolition of the liquor traffic, and he prophesied a dry world in 50 years’ time. He instanced one or two individual cases of outstanding zeal for the cause of prohibition. “If we could only inspire this zeal and sincerity,’ he said, “in spite of all the people like oui friend ‘Givis,’ we would go over the edge for the first time and see every bar closed up and all that waste of energy and waste of power diverted into useful channels, and we could truly make this country God’s Own Country.”—(Applause.)