THE LARGER ISSUE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 93, 2 December 1911, Page 6

THE LARGER ISSUE.

MORE THAN SENTIMENT INVOLVED.

THE LOSS TO THE STATE

At a time when hysterics take the place of argument, as, for the most part, is the case where the clamour to close the public bars in New Zealand rises loudest, consideration of the commercial side of the fray is too apt to be overlooked. But tiie citizen who has an car open only for a one-sided sentimentalism, and a mind which does not reflect upon all the side issues involved, is not giving that thought to great national questions which the State is entitled to expect from him. This applies, of course, to women as well as to men. No person should fail to make an attempt to realise the effects upon the economic conditions of his country which are

involved in any scheme for crushing the liquor trade out of existence. For instance, there is the Dominion revenue which was assisted in IDOL), as under:— * £ s, d. Customs duties on ales, spirits, and wines ... 611,21-1 0 0 Excise duties on local beer 114,799 0 0 £766,013 0 0 Add to that license fees, which fnrni part of the revenue of local bodies .. ... 49,017 0 0 Total revenue ... £806,030 0 0 Next we come to the fact that the capital value of all licensed houses as fixed by the Government Statistician in 1910 amounted to about £4,156,147, and there, incidentally, lies the answer to the oft-repeated question as to why the liquor party so assiduously oppose the spread of No-License, which carries with it an increased consumption of liquor. Very little reflection will show that the purpose of prohibitory law carries with it the purpose to destroy property of immense value accumulated under the special sanction of law from which the Government has for many years derived so large an amount of its Customs and excise revenue. Tiie whole point is that, while the prohibitory laws have not diminished the consumption of intoxicants, they have changed the means of dis-s tribution from legal to illegal channels, so that if New Zealand adopts the scheme of prohibition it will lose over £BOO,OOO of direct revenue, and destroy over £4,000,000 of hotel property, to say nothing of breweries and wine and spirit- businesses owned by a section of its citizens, and this without achieving the end sought for by the destroyers. That lias been the experience elsewhere, and there is no good reason to expect that New Zealand would bo saved from a similar experience by any special provid- ■(; ■ ghee; '

Next to be considered, or, perhaps, first to bo considered, are those whose living depends upon the trade; and .t;'t|ie', citizen- with a vote must ask hi'mJ "self what is to become of the people

in New Zealand who are engaged in or connected. .with- the sale or manufac- ’ ture of wine, spirits, beer, cordials, etc. It is idle to answer, as the NoLicense advocate is proub to do, that “room will be found for them somewhere.” If room is so easily found for those who find themselves and their families cast adrift for some reason or another, hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders who have left their country within the past year or two to seek employment in Australia would have been glad of its exact whereabouts. Reverting to the loss of revenue, it is quite clear that it would have -,to be ! made, up in some other direction. There is no need to argue here

as to whether the Government is morv,Ally right, oi*'wrong? to depend-so largeKfJy> updn; the liquor trade to meet its financial' obligations. Academical theories of right or wrong will not remove the essential fact that if nearly one million of money is no longer secured from the trade in alcoholic liquors it will have to be obtained in some other form of direct or indirect taxation. Can the country stand more taxation ?

Again, the loss to the subsidiary trades demands attention. Some of these could not exist if No-Liccnso or Prohibition closed down tne breweries. Others, wnile iuc deri. iug their business wholly from the biv.vories and hotels, are able to cmpl~y r. substantially larger number of p rsons because of the goous • cnoy manufacture, or services they supply for the trade generally. T_crj ..re hop grape, sugar, and barley growers, horse r breeders, bottle-makers, coopers, carpenters, architects, builders of vehicles, saddlers, box-makers, and many others, all providing employment for reputable citizens. And all this dead waste for what? If modern social history, open to any reader, is correct, it will be for anything but beneficial results. In the United States, the home of this and other ‘‘freak” legislation, a special committee of enquiry known as the Committee of Fifty received the finding of an exhaustive examination from a sub-committee, composed of 'Chas. W. Eliot, President Emeritus, of Harvard University, Seth Low, and James C. Carter, all irreproachable men, as follows:—“Prohibition legislation has failed to exclude intoxicants completely, oven from districts where public sentiment has been favourable. In districts where public sentiment has been adverse or strongly divided, the traffic in alcoholic beverages lias been sometimes repressed or harassed, hut never exterminated or rendered unprofitable. In Maine and lowa (during the prohibition period) there have always been counties and municipalities in complete and successful rebellion against the law. Prohibition has, of course, failed to subdue the drinking passion which will forever prompt resistance to all restrictive legislation.” The best way to avoid ihs dsgraciIng influenoo of Prohibition is to strike out the bottom lines on both ballot papers.*