The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1927. THE LIQUOR QUESTION

Southland Times, Issue 20228, 13 July 1927, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1927. THE LIQUOR QUESTION

There are reasons for believing that the present Parliament will deal with the ballot paper in the Liquor Poll and eliminate the third issue of State Control. It looks as if the support for this third question is waning. On the one hand there are good people who believe that the public will prefer to express their preference for the elimination of spirits only, leaving light wines and beers for the thirsty souls, forgetting that the prohibition of spirits is really no less difficult than the prohibition of all intoxicating beverages. When the Volstead Act adopted as the test for an intoxicating beverage the presence of one-half of one per cent, of alcohol, it aimed at putting the question beyond all doubt. If the alcoholic content is raised to 2.75 per cent, the problem of maintaining the supply of alcoholic beverages beneath that line will be extremely difficult. The advocates of light wines and beers, in spite of these difficulties, are pressing for removal of State Control to admit this issue. On the other hand the Moderate League is presenting Corporate Control as an alternative to State Control, the idea being that the trade shall be put under the control of a corporation in which the State will be financially interested, through the purchase of shares out of profits so that the transaction will be spread over a number of years. This scheme, while it contains the 'elements of State Control, is calculated to make the introduction of the scheme much easier, in addition to which it will provide the Trade with powerful bastions against the assaults of the Prohibitionists. With two proposals in the field as alternatives to State Control the members of the House will be induced to believe that the third issue now on the ballot paper is losing its friends, and its removal will probably be assisted by these activities. The use of preferential voting is not favoured by the anti-prohibitionists, though we cannot see any sound reason why this system of voting should not be adopted in order to secure a clear-cut expression of opinion on the major issue. A Licensing Bill is to be brought down this session and it is sure to produce some keen manoeuvring, but the balance in the House seems to be leaning in the direction of those who seek a ballot paper with only two issues on it. The fact that two alternatives to State Control are being canvassed is enough to show that those who seek a third issue are not satisfied that the State Control question can be retained any longer. Neither of the alternatives is attractive, and neither is likely to secure much public support, especially if Parliament insists on preferential voting. We do not suggest that all those who advocate the introduction of these issues are actuated by a desire to “do the Prohibitionists in the eye” by maintaining a third question in the poll, but undoubtedly the Liquor Trade, failing the retention of State Control, will welcome any proposal that will secure to them the advantage they now epjoy through the presence of the third issue. Fortunately the House is wide awake to this fact, and if the move to secure a two-issue ballot paper fails there will undoubtedly be an effort to introduce preferential voting. On that point the pricking of the card is not so certain, because the views of the members are not so well defined; but it seems to us that the members will not find it easy to escape the issue this time—the Licensing Bill will go through in some form and the ballot paper proposals will not evade a division.