PROGRESS AND RESTORATION

Southland Times, Issue 23610, 10 September 1938, Page 21

PROGRESS AND RESTORATION

To The Editor

Sir,-“-With your kind permission may I say “Oyez! Oyez! Progress Facts! Strength of mind is exercise, not rest.” He has been sleeping too long on my questions. Perhaps he may be now in session and some reply may result shortly. If I am in time, may I submit the following further questions on the principle on which one puts chalk eggs in hens’ nests, that is, that I may lure “Progress Facts” and other non-thinkers of Invercargill at least once in a lifetime to sit. The Invercargill parliamentary main roll has 7235 women and 6180 men on it—loss more women than men —and it is - anticipated that when the supplementary roll closes there will be about 1500 more women than men on the roll. The last census shows that in New Zealand there are about 26,000 fewer females than males, and on the basis of Invercargill having one-six-tieth of New Zealand’s population there should be 433 more males than females which shows that Invercargill is 1933 men short of its quota. Where have the men all gone to? I hope not to licensed towns! Is the anomaly explainable (despite the vaunted progress of Invercargill) on the ground that there is really no progress in Invercargill and that the husbands have to go elsewhere to seek employment, and the progressive young men to northern towns? Whatever the cause, here is some food for thought. Can “Progress Facts” find out if tiie Rev. C. J. Tocker thinks that by voting for no-licence he is really voting against liquor? No-licence is the liquor party’s best customer. Can the man who votes for no-licence be said to be a less valued supporter of the liquor trade or less morally guilty than the man who, from motives of reform and progress, votes for and advocates restoration with its attendant police control of the sale of liquor, improvement in accommodation and increase in progress? Does “Progress Facts” realize that each sly-grogger operating has lots of customers? Does he know the numbers of these law breakers caught here in the year? I hope to be able to supply full information if required. Will he watch the papers for prosecutions in the near future? Does “Progress Facts” know why the prohibition party in 1918 gave up the right to ask to have more districts voted “dry” and in return got a right

for prohibitionists to win the national poll on a bare majority which they now have? When they gave up the right to carry the no-licence campaign into further territory did they not realize that it was not the solution of their troubles?

If “Progress Facts” is in doubt about the answers to these questions perhaps the New Zealand Alliance, which, is meeting here on Monday night, can give him some assistance. —Yours, etc., M. H. MITCHEL. September 9, 1938.