THE LICENSING ISSUE.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 31, Issue 27, 8 April 1919, Page 2

THE LICENSING ISSUE.

On Thursday next the electors will be called upon to decide the most momentous question that has ever,faced the people of this Dominion. They will be asked to record their vote either for the immediate sweeping away of the drink traffic, with the payment of compensation possibly amounting to four and a-half millions, or that licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall continue. National Prohibition is a question too serious to be trifled with, and

it behoves every citizen to carefully weigh the arguments put forth by both sides and to conscientiously record their conviction at the ballot-box. The compensation clause will no doubt diyert many votes on the side of continuance in . the hope that the country may be saved the payment of this huge sum by the carrying of National Prohibition at the next general elections. In that event the trade will still have four and a-half years’ trading rights with no monetary compensation. On the other hand if Prohibition is carried on Thursday the decree will become absolute within a few weeks, and on a bare majority vote, it must be admitted, the “bone-dry” party stand a good chance of success. The chief argument put forth by the ‘Trade’ against National Prohibition is the financial loss that the country will have to face by the payment of compensation and loss of customs revenue, which they hold must result in increased taxation and a further increase in the cost of living. This aspect of the question is an important one. An alarming array of figures is given for the elector to study showing how his living expenses will be increased by the sudden withdrawal of the drink revenue. The other side, however, meet these objections with figures which are all in the opposite direction—presenting a picture under prohibition of increased prosperity to the individual and to‘the nation. It is argued that the closing of the bars will divert the £5,000,000 now being spent on liquor to other and healthier channels. It is assumed that the spending power of the people will be about the same, but the money now being wasted in drink will be spent in clothing and other goods, more luxuries for the masses, etc., resulting in an immediate increase in the customs duties. A good proportion of the money saved may be expected to find its way into the Post Office Savings Bank, from which the country will derive an indirect benefit. But the advocates for Prohibition, present the moral aspect of the question as the strongest plank in their platform, and no doubt this will appeal to a large proportion of voters next Thursday—especially those who have growing families.

In the event of Prohibition being carried the Minister of Finance is empowered to borrow the money required for compensation, and repayment of the loan will be spread over a period of years, requiring about £250,000 annually for interest and sinking fund until the loan is extinguished. The Prohibition party points out that that amount works out to less than 5s per - head, while the annual saving effected by Prohibition will be at least £5 per head. In conclusion we can only urge voters jto look at the question from a broad-minded point of view, and record their vote on the side which, in their opinion, is best for the country as a whole. _ If satisfied that the sale of liquor is a* hindrance to greater national efficiency it is the duty of the voter to support the Efficiency’s Board’s recommendations. If on the other hand the voter is satisfied that alcohol is necessary to the people of the Dominion, and that its removal would be a hardship and an unnecessary interference with public liberty, it is clearly his or her duty to vote for continuance.