THE NO-LICENCE QUESTION

Patea Mail, Volume XLIII, 17 March 1919, Page 2

THE NO-LICENCE QUESTION

A BREEZY MEETING,

There was a fair attendance at the Town Hall last night to hear addresses on the No-licence question from a business standpoint by Messrs W, D. Powdrell, 0. Hawken, J. R. Corrigan, F. Mills, J. Blair and A. Hunter. The speakers on the whole obtained a good hearing: and were frequently applauded, though at times there were numerous interjections, principally from outside visitors, which would probably have been responsible for some confusion had not the Chairman kept the meeting well in hand. His Worship the Mayor, Mr C. A. Larcombe presided, and briefly introduced the speakers. Mr F, Mills, who was the first speaker, expressed the hope that the contest would be carried out without bitterness and without peasonalities on either side. Every man had the right to his own opinion and he hoped that when the numbers went up. they would be able to shake hands as friends. Dealing with the question of efficiency, the speaker said they must admit that the nonliquor man was more efficient than the liquor man. Mr Parry, the electrical expert, had! stated that the Lake Coleridge scheme could have been carried out at 30 percent less cost had there been no liquor. If this were the case with this undertaking, it was only fair tojassume that it would be the same with manufactures the making of a pair of boots for example, and if they could get their commodities at 30 per cent less cost than at present, surely prohibition was a good business proposition. (Applause). Then there was the amount added to goods for bad debts. He had been told that 75 per cent of the extra charge was due to the loss through the drinking men. A voice: Rubbish,

The amount spent in New Zealand annually on liquor was about £l6 per family. A voice: You are cutting it a bit low aren't you ? Continuing, the speaker said this sum represented the average sum per family. Taking into consideration the families that spent nothing on drink, it showed that those who did, spent far more than £l6, in fact 2s per head per day was the sum estimated that could be saved if No-licence were carried. Some people had said they were going to vote against No-licence on April 10, because they favoured State control, but they had State control now. Possibly they meant State ownership. If so this would cost them more like £15,000,000 than the millions proposed. Would they say that liquor would do less harm under the State than under private ownership ? AtNormanby their member, Mr Pearce had stated that he was opposed to No licence because it interfered with the liberty of the subject. Mr Pearce should know that in no civilised country was there such a thing as personal liberty, as laws restricted them on every hand. Mr O. Hawken next addressed the gathering and claimed that people drank too much, for the money annually spent in drink would suffice to pay the rent of a house for every married couple in the Dominion. Parliament had been talking about reforming the trade for years, but had done nothing yet.

A voice; What about six o’clock closing? Mr Pearce the speaker said, had objected to bare majority on the ground that there would be a bitter struggle to get back the licences, but he did not think people who had paid 4millions to get rid of the trade would be so foolish as to throw their money away by re-instating it. (Applause). Mr Powdrell said none of the speakers that night were total abstainers, but they were willing to do without their liquor for the benefit of their fellow men. The revenue from liquor in New Zealand was about one million pounds. The first question was, if this were abolished, where was the revenue to come from ? Was there anyone who would agree to give one of every five of his family for the sake of keeping the liquor traffic alive ? Therefore they could well afford to do without it.

At this stage there was some interruption, Mr Powdrell remarking to one of the interjectors “ You are a retired publican from Hawera, and know all about the drink traffic.” Mr Powdrell reminded the audience that they would have ten minutes on the platform at the close of the meeting. What did they get in return for the millions spent on liquor each year? Nothing but human derelicts. What could they not purchase with this vast sum if they spent it in the right way. Mr Pearce had stated he was against compensation, but how would he like anyone to take any of his land away without compensating him for it. The amount to be paid for compensation if spread over a period of years would not amount to more than 5s per head of the population and who would not pay this amount to insure against his son becoming a drunkard, or his daughter marrying one. Somebody, the speaker stated, had claimed that No-lioence would

be ruinous for Patea, as the Borough Council would lose heavily in the loss of if the hotels were closed. The position was that the Albion Hotel, paid £4O in licence and £49 in rates, whilst Gibsons’ Ltd. paid £250 in rates. A voice: Nonsense. Your figures are all wrong. Continuing, Mr Powdrell said that the Central Hotel paid £4O in licence and £63 in rates —£103 altogether, whilst the Masonic paid £75 altogether, and Messrs Boyle and Jones £lls for their small section. They could see that they would not lose therefore is No-license were carried. (Applause). Mr A. Hunter, the well known footballer, also spoke from a sportsman’s standpoint and claimed that liquor was fatal to a man who wished to- excel in sport* Mr J, R. Corrigan who next spoke, asked all present to listen to the arguments brought forward and then vote according to their conscience. Mr Corrigan, next asked his audience to quote instances where drink had done good, but received no reply. He next asked them if they knew of cases where it had done harm and received the reply “Yes, lots.” “There you have the matter in a nutshell,” said Mr Corrigan. Mr Blair said he was not going to addresss the meeting, but he asked ,them to discuss the question quietly and amicably and vote as their consciences dictated. At the invitation of the Chairman for anyone to go on to the platform for 10 minutes Mr McNeill ascended the stage and stated it gave him great pleasure to introduce himself. They had the blessing of the ballot box where they could vote as they liked. He said there was only one of the speakers that night who had a representative at the front, yet they came and talked about what the soldiers should do. (Uproar), Why did not Mr Mills’ son go ? Mr Powdrell, when the uproar had subsided and Mr McNiell had left the stage, said that any man who blamed the speakers for not having representatives at the front when they knew that their eldest son was but years of age was nothing but a coward. (Uproar). Mr Mills, in reply to Mr McNeill, said if the latter did not know the circumstances in connection with his son then the people would know what to call him for bringing the matter forward. “If he does know the facts,” added Mr Mills, “ then I know what to think of him.” (Applause and uproar). Mr F. W. Grainger explained that the amounts mentioned by Mr Powdrell with regard to Messrs Gibsons’ Ltd. and Messrs Boyle and Jones’ properties represented the annual value, not the rates paid. The Council had gone into the matter carefully and found that they would stand to lose some £420 a year if Nolicence were carried, and this would require a rate of 6d in the £to make up. Matters might right themselves in time, but that was the actual position. (Applause). Mr Powdrell said he was sorry if he had quoted the wrong figures, but they had been given him by a member of his staff who was formerly a member of the Council. A vote of thanks to the speakers moved by the Rev N. J. Ravn, and the customary vote of thanks to the Chair, then concluded the meeting.