THAT THIRD ISSUE

Southland Times, Issue 19966, 4 September 1926, Page 6

THAT THIRD ISSUE

Some of the people who defend the Licensing Bill Mr Coates has thrown to Parliament in the dying hours of the session do the measure poor service in tbeir efforts to destroy the arguments of the Bill’s opponents. The New Zealand Herald lately has become indignant at the protests of the New Zealand Alliance against the retention of the third issue, and argues warmly that the State Control question should be kept in being because it will ensure that Prohibition must secure an absolute majority over all alternatives before it can be made operative. It is certainly desirable that Prohibition, if it is carried, should have the endorsement of a substantial majority of the people, but when majorities are being discussed it is desirable to remember that rule by a minority is equally to be abhorred. At the present moment every vote for State Control counts against the proposal involving change and naturally the Prohibitionists object to its retention as a handicap on themselves. Their case is unconsciously strengthened by the New Zealand Herald in its efforts to show how unreasonable they are, because that journal concludes an editorial reference to the subject by saying: Nor can it be forgotten that if prohibition is to be carried by a bare majority, the will of the people must be expressed by the same narrow margin upon the inevitable issue of restoration. . . . Those who so ardently insist upon a simple vote by bare majority now do not seem to perceive that they irrevocably commit themselves to accept an equally simple verdict should Restoration become an issue.

It is unfortunate for the New Zealand Herald that the Licensing Bill commits those who oppose the third issue to this simple verdict on a bare majority in the event of a poll being taken after Prohibition is carried. The Bill prepares for such a poll and eliminates the third issue of State Control, which would operate against the interests of change. This unwelcome fact turns the Herald’s final shot into a revelation of the unfairness of the law as it stands. A simple verdict on a bare majority, with only two issues involved is provided to effect the change back from Prohibition, when the desirability of a substantial majority is as patent, and one may ask why the conditions prior to the sarrying of Prohibition are different.