NOT A DOG’S LIFE

Stratford Evening Post, Volume LV, Issue 90, 15 June 1925, Page 5

NOT A DOG’S LIFE

PROHIBITION AIMS. VIEWS OF EGMONT MEMBER. SOUGHT BY ALLIANCE PARTY. (Special to “Post.’’) Eltham, June 15. Most emphatically Mr 0. J. Hawken, M.P., told a deputation from the Egmont No-license League this morning that they we re doing wrong in asking sitting Parliamentarians how they would vote. Imputations of influence could be made against the Alliance. Mr Hawken declined to give his opinions on certain questions, preferring that the people should judge him after he had voted. The Rev. E. J. Orange was in the chair, and ten others from various parts of the electorate comprised the deputation, and several apologies were received.

The Rev. E. J. Orange, (Eltham) explained that the Alliance had arranged the deputation with some definite aim. He assured Mr Hawken that the deputation did not want to adopt pin-pricking tactics or lead him a dog’s life. The Alliance, which represented the majority of the people of the Dominion, was in earnest. The License Party were also in earnest. The Alliance was afraid that fresh legislation would be introduced. The Alliance wished to know what Mr Hawken’s opinions were, or whether he would vote as he thought fit at the moment. The Alliance did not mind battling against present legislation. The Alliance wished party politics to be put aside and would stand for the man who supported them. The Rev. J. D. Smith (Manaia) said if longer notice of the deputation could have been given Manaia would have been much strongly represented. He agreed with the Hon. J. G. Coates when he said no political requests should be made to him. A man should stand to his opinions and not shilly-shally when pressure was brought to bear. Mr Hawken was a reasonable man, and the Alliance stood for the decent section of the community and was doing what it thought 'fit for the uplift of the race. The drunkard’s vote also counted. The referendum this year, he said, would be in favor of Prohibition. He knew there was a change of sentiment in the Egmont electorate. Howtever, the deputation did not want that to influence Mr Hawken’s opinion. In Parliament, the Prohibition Party was not represented as it should be, and it was useless asking Parliament to give legislation favorable to the cause. He understood that the recommendations of the Licensing Commission were not adopted only by a narrow majority last session, and it was understood that the recommendations might be adopted which would retard the Alliance’s aim. The Alliance protested against the transfer of Released Another retrograde proposal was for a referendum every nine years; that would be a catastrophe to the aims of the Alliance, and was made by the Trade to shelter them. The polls had shown that changes of sentiment took place every three years. Another proposal which the Alliance would fight to the death was if prohibition were carried to bring it into effect four years later. The Alliance wanted prohibition, if such were carried, bought into effect six months later. A proposal for special drinking in restaurants after 6 p.m. would damage the character of the communities and result in an increase of drinking. The Alliance was against licensing boards set up, as against the committees and the Alliance wanted a voice on the election. The Alliance’s uncompromising demand was for a two vote ballot paper. The party demanded that th*e issues should be clearly set out and the handicap of a definite majority should be done away with. If prohibition were carried, what sort of enforcement Act would Mr Hawken vote for —i per cent, or 4 per cent? Mr Hawken: 4 per cent is a considerable kick. (Laughter.) Replying, Mr Hawken said it was an awkward position the deputation had put him in—not because he whs adverse to answering direct questions, but when legislation was proposed during the coming session, was it wise to influence the members. There was a danger in that. In British practice Parliamentarians did not do that, as it would allow a party to be levelled with the imputation of influence on members. However, people were entitled to know how a member stood. While the controversy went on if the liquor party used influence, the Alliance deputation could see what would happen. If legislation were proposed, they would see the difficulty. But he did not think such legislation would be brought down this session. Mr Hawken reiterated that politically the Alliance -was doing wrong. “I think you should appreciate that it is not the policy to bring pressure to hear on politicians. Whatever I say would be taken as a pledge of my position during the session.

Mr Smith said they wanted to know Mr Hawken’s attitude.

Mr Hawken said lit was better that the people should wait till a member voted and then judge him. The American methods were to bind politicians. Mr Orange; We don’t wish to bind you. Mr Hawken: I will say that the existing legislation will do me. I’ve never been in favor of a redistribution of licenses. If there are any I licenses, they should be new licenses. !We don’t want increases of license in New Zealand. If you take a small license and put it in a large

area where there is more trade, it would lead to more drinking. A» for the extended time between the poll, I thought last session w« would see the effect of prohibition in America. Three years after this coming election the effect in America will be clear to the world. The contention of the trade that they were unable to go in for improvements between the polls was not sound, for the limitation of the licenses had resulted in vast trades and fortunes. More was being made from tht licenses and less put back into the hotels. , The licensing committees were not acting strongly enough in regard to some hotels. The accommodation was inequitable. He did not think the four years’ period before enforcement wias right. Hs was of different opinion to Mr Smith of the present position of the House, for no one knew how the House would vote at present. Mr Hawken reiterated that members should not be asked for their opinion till after the session, although he did not see much wrong in their meeting him on the question of a two-vote ballot. Mr Hawken said that was not a part he was prepared to pronounce on yet. If there was a straight out ballot, there would be compulsion, and he wished to have a bit in hand. Mr J. Thompson moved that the hearty thanks of the League be accorded Hawken for his kindness in meeting the deputation.