The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1927. THOSE ISSUES

Southland Times, Issue 20208, 20 June 1927, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1927. THOSE ISSUES

When the deputation from the New Zealand Alliance waited on the Prime Minister seeking information about the licensing legislation to be introduced during the coming

session, Mr Coates impressed on the members of the Alliance thßt the Government was anxious to bring about reforms with the Trade and to provide the House with opportunities for an unfettered vote on questions connected with the Liquor Question. It is certainly right to insist that proposals for improving the control of the Liquor Trade shall be considered quite apart from the main question of abolition or continuance, and it is to be hoped that the most ardent advocates of Prohibition will see the

need for assisting in these amendments in the law making improvements possible; but at the same time the Government will ask too much of them if it brings about changes which will undoubtedly be to the advantage of the Trade while denying the Prohibitionists the satisfaction of seeing the House express itself on the number of issues to be submitted to the electors and the method of voting. The New Zealand Moderate League, like the organisation which fights the battle for the Trade, sees in the efforts of the New Zealand Alliance to remove the State Control issue from the ballot paper a sinister design and from time to time there are issued warnings against plots and various schemes of a dark hue designed to deprive the State Controlites of their right to express themselves. Of course, the Alliance makes no secret of its project. It seeks to remove the third issue because it regards it as an unfair advantage, making it possible for a minority party to gain its ends. If Prohibition were carried and the Trade were seeking to obtain restoration on a referendum, it would also look on the State Control issue as an evil. This third issue on the ballot paper operates as a handicap against the party endeavouring to bring about a change. It is not unreasonable to ask that the people who want State Control should be able to give expression to their views, but it has to be acknowledged that the real issue facing the people of this country is Prohibition or Continuance, and that State Control, as an alternative to either, can and may assume larger proportions at a later stage. At odd times there have appeared people who wish to complicate the fight still further by asking the worried voter to consider the advisability of restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages to light wipes and beers. This project can call to its aid arguments as sound apd as ponderable as those used on behalf of State Control and if the one is included there is really no valid reason why the other should not be. But if everybody supporting the one or the other is earnestly striving for the rights of the individual voter, the obvious solution must be the introduction of preferential voting. It seems to us that if the State Control issue is to be retained the House should be given the chance to say whether or not preferential voting should be employed so that the decision on the main issue can be obtained without undue advantage being given to one side. Many people do not regard the carrying of Prohibition as the en& of the voting on this matter, and if preferential voting is employed the State Control supporters will still be able to press forward with what they believe to be the best solution of the problem. It is difficult to see what arguments can be advanced against this change if the third issue is to be retained or if a fourth is to be added. The Government will put this contentious matter on a much fairer basis, or a more logical basis if it follows this course, and it will have a powerful answer to the extremists who insist on the summary removal of the third question from the ballot paper or its rentention so as to penalise the other side.