Prohibition Lecture .

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 86, 16 August 1923, Page 3

Prohibition Lecture .

> I (Published by arrangement,) | . I Speaking at the annual meeting ; of the Stratford Prohibition Lea- j guo on Tuesday night, Mr J. Malton j Murray, assistant secretary of the New' Zealand Alliance, addressed the gathering on the question of Corporate Control. Mr Murray prefaced his remarks, however, by saying that it was necessary that the public should he educated in regard to the fact that it is not the method of selling liquor that was the trouble. He recalled the statement made in July last b.V the President of the British Medical Association that venereal disease and alcoholism wore responsible for most of the misery and moral degradation of the race. He also quoted Sir Arthur Newsholme, late Chief Medical Officer of the local Government Board, who said:—“We are compelled to conclude that what is commonly described' as moderate drinking has a mo r t injurious influence on health and life.” Ho further lominded his bearers that the National EfficiencyBoard recommended Prohibition in tHo interests of permanent national efficiency. On the question of the King Country, Mr Murray said that S’r Robert Stout had, -on August 2nd, in Wellington recalled the historical cirenmstances in connection with the ’•'fief- made with the Maoris to the effect that license should not be -mnted in the King Country. Sir Robert dealt with the part he himself played as Premier, 'signing the proclamation in IBftt. Sir Robert's words were.: “To .ask ns to saneel this agreement of tbig league between us and the Maoris would he doing an unmoral act, and I fool that the people of New Zealand are not going to have such a record made against them, and that they will do for our country what will ho in accordance with honesty, truth and justice.” Mr Murray further said that the position was that, apart altogether from the question of the pact, we had a state of things in the King Country which made it difficult for the Maoris to get liquor. , A Maori chief had stated that at present only 10 per cent of the young Maori men drank, but he was sure that if licenses wore granted 90 per. cent would drink. In view of the British Medical Association’s recent statement as to alcohol being the cause of misery and degradation, could the Government face the responsibility of breaking down the present condition of things and delivering the Maoris over to the scourge of alcohol. Sir Maui Pomare in the House had recently stated that when in the Cook Islands the Europeans and the Maoris were put on an equality undei total Prohibition, the “hush beer” evil disappeared. Even liquor advocates have admitted that the Maoris would loyally abide by total Prohibition in the King Country. CORPORATE CONTROL. Healing with the proposal to put ! Corporate Control on the ballot paper in place of State Purchase afid Control, Mr Murray said that the existing third issue of State Purchase was discredited, dead, and done for. Even liquor people now began to call it an unsatisfactory issue, although it had been lauded to the skies as the solution of the liquor problem. As a matter of fact, the jaded old runner State Purchase was being taken out of the race and another horse from the same stable was being trotted out by the liquor interests, who were now busy saying all the fine things about Corporate Control that they had previously said about State Purchase. The originators of the Corporate Control proposal were three Anglican clergymen and a layman whom it, must be accorded were sincere, if illinformed, in their efforts. He thought they must ho ill-informed because there was nothing in the Corporate Control proposals that had not been previously tried and failed as a solution of the liquor problem. The real thing was, who were the supporters of Corporate Control? These were found to be th© members of the old Moderate League and a. glorious galaxy of brewers, wholesale wine and spirit merchants and hotelkeepers. Thesp had formed themselves into the New Zealand Licensing Reform AssociV , tion which now- supported Corporate 1 Control—this organisation was in essence the Moderate League which l>emg dead yet speaks. It was to point out.that the Anglican clergy associated with this movement were acting for themselves and not on behalf of the Church. Ho believed bo was right in saying that the Corporate Control proposers themselves desired that the public should understand that the Church as such had not adopted Corporate Control which had no official Church backing. The proposers bad recently circulated a petition which Mr Messer presented as “from Auckland and district.” j But this petition with its 500(1 names ; was not from Auckland and district alone, it had been circulated from ! Auckland to the Bluff. Amongst !those, who bad signed it was a large i number of brewers, brewery workers. • hotelkeepers, barmen and domestic i servants. There wore less than j thirty clerical signatures and amongIst these there was not a sincrle Bnni tist, Congregational, Church of ! Christ, Methodist or Presbyterian* , Minister and not a single Salvation Arm" officer. It was only fair to say that -some hotedcceners were against the Corporate Control proposal as. for instance, the Auckland licensed Vic-

tuallers, who l did not son the force 1 I of making the Government a present || of ono-fifth of their business. Perhaps those hotelkeepers were under tlio delusion that the brewers wanted Corporate Control to bo, carried. They did not want that at all, they were simply supporting it as a confusing third issue on the. ballot paper in the ■hope that it, like State Purchase and Control, could be put on the ballot paper in a. way to defeat the Prohibition vote. Prohibitionists were asking for a two-issue ballot paper, and the liquor party professes that a two-issue ballot pai>er would force people to vote for something they did not want, whilst at the same time they wore professing that the State Control voP‘ was a Hquo r vote. He pointed out that the present ballot paper, while allowing those who want' State Purchase to vote that way, ai-.nally made them responsiolo for keeping Continuance going when fdiey had voted against it. If it was contended that State Purchase voters voted against Prohibition then it was equally true to say they voted against Continuance. Tn any rasa Prohibition and State Purchase when added together gave a majority of 63.849 over Continuance If the liquor people believed that all the State Purchase votes were ‘Vet”* then thev might to allow these “wet” vo -s an opportunity to declare themselves by eliminating tha State Purchase issue. The votes of the country clearly shoved that the only two issues that lecliy interest- | ed the people wore Conn nuance and I Prohibition, there was no popular demand for reform proposals. Tn conclusion, Mr Murray sail that the Corporate Controllers ought to make it clear whether hotels were to ho limited to If) per cent, in their j profits. They ought to ho asked—■ Why : pay three years’ nett pfofiip to the Honor interests if Corporate Central was carried when they were sure «'f a nine years’ tenure before another poll. This was just State Purchase after all. They should he asked to define what they mean by a high standard of conduct and accommoda- - tion in hotels. They should ho asked how they propose to decide which hotels are to sell spirits and which not, and also asked what good it would do if, say, two hotels jn ? town were forbidden to sell spirits and Hi re o others in the same town were allowed to sell spirits. Finally they ought to ho asked what warrant there is for asking for powers to grant additional licenses for wine manufacture when the vote of the country, is solidly against expansion of. tlio liquor titiffia. Mr Murray said he would like to point out that j the Moderate League and Corporate j Control proposers had asked the J people at the last poll to indicate i their wishes for reform and less ! than six per cent of the voters had shown themselves interested. The j petition to Parliament with its 6000 I names represented only 0.8 per cent | of the voters. If in response jo this j small demand the 'Government put j Corporate Control on the ballot paper j in place tof State Purchase and Con- j trol on the ballot paper in place of j trol, it would ,establish a dangerous j precedent. With this precedent estab- | lished, how could the Government j find any reasonable objection to an ; appeal for a vote on, say, the> ' capital levy. It would be easy to i get a. petition signed with vastly ; more than 0.8 per cent of the voters 1 who would like a vote on the j capital levy. How could the Govern- , ment reasonably object to such a demand if it established the precedent of granting the present undemocratic demand of a minority mainly * interested in tho liquor traffic?