Against Prohibition

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 508, 10 November 1928, Page 6

Against Prohibition

MR. SCOTT BENNETT’S VIEWS

Vigorous Address Given

(Published by Arrangement)

Mr. H. Scott Bennett, the well-known lecturer, spoke before a large audience at the Grey Lynn Public Library on Thursday evening. The lecturer, who took for his subject, "‘The Case Against Prohibition,” received a splendid hearing, the only interruption being occasioned by the hearty applause that punctuated his remarks. Dealing at the outset with the recent Presidential election in America, Mr. Scott Bennett said nothing could be more fallacious than the claim made in some quarters to the effect that Mr. Hoover’s victory demonstrated that a majority of the American people were in favour of Prohibition. Not only had the Republicans the advantage of being the party in power, but also the introduction of sectarianism on a nation-wide scale, in addition to a multiplicity of issues, made a straight-out vote upon the Prohibition question an impossibility. Tt should be remembered it was the Prohibition Party, and not the opponents of Prohibition, who were opposed to a national referendum upon the question in America. They feared a repetition of the Canadian experience, for in Canada when the dry laws were submitted to the people every province with but two exceptions voted for the repeal of Prohibition. The failure of Prohibition in America was too glaring to be hidden by any subterfuge. Some Prohibitionists when they compared the principle in action with Prohibition in theory were frank enough to admit it. The case of Mr. W. H. Hemingway, of Hemingway and Robertson’s' Correspondence School, might be cited. Writing from America to a friend, this gentleman had said: “For iifteen years I voted for Prohibition in New Zealand, but after America, never, never would I do so again, and I am, as you know, a Prohibitionist at heart.” The lecturer then analysed the position as it actually obtained in America, taking as his authorities official American records. He showed the claim made by Prohibitionists to the effect that the prosperity of America was due to Prohibition was incorrect, as* the commercial and industrial conditions prevailing there were due to the normal working of well-known economic laws.

Literature emanating from Prohibitionists, said the speaker, claimed that with the coming of Prohibition there would be a diminution in crime. Did the present lawless state of America substantiate the contention? Quoting from the report of the California State Board of Prison Directors, the lecturer showed that between the years 1919 and 1926 there had been an increase in serious crime of 64 per cent.

Taking the Congressional Record February 13, 1928, Mr. Scott Bennett showed that whereas in 1920 there had been 114,541 convictions for drunkenness in sixteen leading American cities, in 1927 the number of convictions amounted to 344,035. Even “dry” papers spoke of the “intensive drinking,” and the Episcopal Church

Temperance Society deplored the increase in excessive drinking in man> places. Not only did Prohibition fail to prohibit, but also it seemed actually to accentuate the very evils it professed to cure. New Zealand a Temperate Nation Prohibition, said Mr. Scott Bennett, was emphatically not a synonym for temperance. Neither was New Zealand a country so drink-besotten as to require a compulsory Prohibition order for the whole country. The people of New Zealand as a vvhole failed to see either the immorality or criminality in the moderate consumption of alcoholic refreshments. They also failed to see why some 20,000 people should be thrown upon an already glutted labour market. To say that these people, dependent upon the liquor trade for a living, could be absorbed by other industries was worse than folly. Why. jf the process of absorption was so easy, were not the present unemployed absorbed?

"Why should New Zealand be asked to become the.dumping ground for the pseudo-reform called Prohibition? Why should the citizens of the Dominion be expected to adopt a system that encouraged the bootlegger, glorified hypocrisy, fostered corruption, increased crime and gave the informer a place of dignity in the community. The American Federation of Labour was one of the largest, if not the largest, Labour organisations in the world. Its membership consisted of several millions of workers, male and female. Was it not significant that every convention held by this orjmnisation since the coming of Prohibinon had passed resolutions demanding the repeal or modification of the Volstead Act?

Where Prohibition Fails in New Zealand

It was not necessary to go to America, however, for examples of Prohibition futility. Apart from the tragicomedy of New Zealand’s “dry” areas, let them reflect upon the law prohibiting bookmaking in this country. In spite of heavy fines and terms of imprisonment, was there anyone so innocent as to suppose that bookmaking had been abolished, or that “punting” had received its quietus? Was there a city or town of any size where, quite apart from the totalisator, a person could not bet, could not get “set” by a bookmaker? Had the prohibition imposed prevented betting with bookmakers one iota? It had not and could not. So with the attempt to prohibit alcoholic beverages. If the people wanted refreshment in that form they would obtain it. Far better was it to have the sale licensed than to adopt Pussyfootism, with its speak-easies, governmental corruption and nationwide hypocrisy. (Loud applause.) If every commodity was to be prohibited because some people abused it, where were they to stop? And in the matter of the abuse of alcoholic liquor it should be remembered that the world was becoming increasingly abstemious, due, not to a sumptuary law, but rather to experience and edu-

cation. The people of New Zealand would demonstrate on November lf bv a greater majority than ever that they favoured reason rather than hysteria. Freedom Against Coercion The lecturer concluded his remarks with a brilliant peroration, in which he said that the position they had to face in New Zealand was this: Not only were they called upon to deny that people should be free to have any kind of refreshment in moderation to which they were accustomed and which they liked, but to bring upon themselves, as every country where Prohibition had been tried only too clearly showed, a host of evils ethically indefensible and socially devastating. That the people of New Zealand would deliberately vote themselves into such a morass of social disasters who could believe? The history, the traditions, the very genius of the people would compel them to dismantle the fortress of fanaticism and emphatically negative those assmjft*. tions underlying Prohibition that would have people believe that fetters en- ! noble and freedom degrades, that the Dominion citizens needed legal | muzzles and straight-jackets, that | busybodies have, a divine mission to interfere with other people’s business without their consent, that we could vote a man dry or that excess on the part of a few justified Prohibition orders for everybody! But they could not afford to tak% any risks. Every vote should be polled in opposition, every drawbridge raised against the threatened invasion. The fight on the 14th would be infinitelv' more than a fight in defence of a trade, it would be a reflex of an age-long] world-wide struggle between two principles—the principle of freedom and the principle of coercion, a conflict in which the spirit of freedom must range itself in antagonism to the spirit of coercion, and reason silence the unpleasant voice of hysteria. (Sustained applause.) Several questions were answered by the speaker, and, judging from the applause, the answers met with the whole-hearted approval of the audience.