THE NO-LICENSE CAMPAIGN

Southern Cross, Volume 10, Issue 30, 25 October 1902, Page 9

THE NO-LICENSE CAMPAIGN

Mr H. D. Bedford, M.A., who is one of the candidates for Dunedin City, visited Invercargill this week, and on Tuesday evening, in St Paul’s Presbyterian Church, delivered an address on “ Some aspects of the no-lioense question.” The building was crowded. The Rev. S. F. Prior occupied the chair, and introduced Mr Bedford, who opened with a reference to the keenness of the struggle for commercial supremacy between Britain, Germany, and the United States. Would Britain maintain her position, or would she be forced to one side ? The answer to that question was in our own hands —we could answer it as we liked. There was no better raw material than the British race. Every reform likely to improve the industrial efficiency of the people, and advance them mentally, physically, and morally, should be closely studied. All over the world there was an enormous waste of energy, and the problem was how to divert it into proper channels. The reform known as nolicense would not be a remedy for all the ills of society, but it would very materially improve the people, and very materially lessen the amount of wasted energy. The demand of the age was for the utmost efficiency in every department of life, and the nation that best answered that demand would leap along the pathway of progress. If the adoption of no-license would prove helpful, then it was their duty as reasonable men to seek to bring about that reform. There was a great amount of capital and labour expended in connection with the liquor traffic, and what did they get in return P Liquor itself was of absolutely no service except for medicinal purposes. Last year we spent nearly three millions sterling on something that was no good to start with, but on the contrary was the cause of an incalculable amount of harm, and Britain in the same time spent 187 millions sterling. Think of the revolution it would cause if that money were spent, not in maintaining a traffic that was a menace to the youth of the colony, but in free libraries, gymnasia, and in other healthful and useful directions. We judged a tree by its fruits. Summon to the bar the bootmaker, the butcher, the teacher, and the preacher, and they could all prove that they were of service to their fellows, but ask the brewer to justify his work —let him show how men were supplied at the bars with that which in many cases rendered them only fit to be locked up in gaols and asylums. Better lock the liquor away from the man than the man from the liquor. Let them look at the position, in this way. A man comes to the colony and purposes to start a big industry, employing so many men and investing so much capital. Very well, but how will it affect the colony—what results will it produce ? Poverty, misery, crime, degradation, and a lessening of the revenue - producing power of the people. Would the Government, would the people allow such a business to find a footing in the colony ? Surely not ! Then, why vote for the continuance of a business that was responsible for all the evil he had indicated P Some people said the remedy was State control, but experience was against them, and those countries which had made the experiment would probably ere long go a step further, and abolish the traffic. But why this cry about revenue ? If more revenue had to be raised it would be the teetotallers, and not the moderate drinkers, who would have to pay it. Then there was the question of interference with the liberty of the subject. “ You can never convince me,” said a man in Dunedin, “ that you have a right to deprive me

I of the liberty to take a glass of beer My doing doesn’t so doesn’t hurt ray wife or children or anybody else.” Liberty had been defined by Paley, the great thinker and philosopher, as “ the not being restrained by anj law except that which conduces in a greater measure to the public wellbeing.” If it could be proved that the liquor traffic conduced in a greater measure to the public wellbeing, then they had no right to ask men to impose the restrain of prohibition. But if they could prove that the traffic was absolutely harmful and seriously affecting the wellbeing of the community, then they must impose the necessary restraint found in no-license. Go to that home which is destitute of many comforts, and see that woman and her children lacking good clothing and in some cases sufficient food, due to the habits of the husband and father. “Well,” said the lecturer, “ I would rather give that woman the liberty to get the ordinary com torts ot life for herself and children than give a man the liberty to get a glass of beer.” The polling day was approaching let them remember Nelson’s famous signal and “do their duty.” Questions were invited, but none were asked.

The Rev. Mr Lyon said it had been suggested that all who were willing to vote no-license and to use their influence in that behalf should stand up, and almost every one in the audience did so.

On the motion of Mr J. S. Baxter, who remarked that there were many reasons to believe that no-license would be carried in Invercargill, a cordial vote of thanks was passed to Mr Bedford, and the proceedings closed with the Benediction,