THE ISSUE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume V, Issue 1587, 15 March 1919, Page 10

THE ISSUE.

iUMMONS FOR A PROHIBITION ORDER. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. [A contribution to the liquor controversy j by Charles Lewis.] On April 10 a judgment of great importance and public interest is to j be given by the court of public opinion. The Prohibitionists have applied to that court for a probibiboa order against me. and are also asking that I shall be heavily fined. If no longer, alas! a young New Zea-1 lander, I af least am a native of; young New Zealand, and I have come to regard myself as one who! bis fellows considered was not only competent to manage his own life, but. indeed, a fit and proper person : to pass laws for the guidance of I others—one who could be trusted.; Yet the Prohibitionists are demand-; ing that I shall he placed in the de- ! grading and humiliating position of a prohibited person for the rest of the term of my natural life, and | heavily fined to boot. I am con-j strained therefore to appear before the court to urge that judgment shall be for the defendant. Now 1 am no! so puffed up with vanity and (Self-righteousness as to suggest that I am any better, and our Prohibition friends Will readily agree with me that 1 could not very well be any worse than Ihe rest of you, who are joined with me as defendants. I am appearing not only in my own behalf but in yours. When I ask the Prohibitionists what I have done to deserve such treatment, they reel off columns of figures dealing wifh convictions for bigamy, arson and exceeding the speed limit in such places as Calgary and Saskatchewan. I am not prepared to take my opinions from residents of places I can hardly find upon the map. If I am to be adjudged incapable of forming my own opinions I prefer to look for guidance to my own fellow countrymen living under exactly similar conditions to my own. There are 12 dry districts in this country. In each of them Prohibition was carried by a three-fifths majority. and that majority at once became relatively greater bv fhe elimination t,l Iht- iii/Ineiic-<- .-uir't voting strength of hotels. Yet af last election we find that in only two of those twelve districts was Prohibition retained bv a three-fifths majority. After varying periods of experience of Prohibition its position was weaker in the other ten. To me fhe question of whether 1 shall continue or no! to consume small quantities of alcohol, at very irregular intervals, is of no more importance than whether I shall fiv;>t . im.stif occasionally to a pound of Sausages or a dozen oysters. And if! Prohibition meant no more than that.! I should feel degraded bv fhe sug-j gestion that if was worth\ of a. second though! one way or the | other. If is because if means so much i more than that, and something so Very different, that I look upon i! as! . s matter of supreme importance. 1 \ am mil a Prohibitionist; but I am Separated from Prohibitionists by no wider gulf than that which stretches between me and those who 1 erect alcohol into a sort of golden call, and pursue with abuse and maledictions all who refuse to bow' flown and worship if. hi thai respec! I believe I may claim to be- j lor*; to the majority of electors; and' , it is exclusively to. and of, and fori ■ such electors, that I am writing.! ' Widely as I may differ from their; 'ideas, strnngly as I may endeavour to defeat their aims. I can contemplate Prohibitionists without any of the loathing with which I observe the behaviour of those whose ex- i cesses are the outcome of purely I bestial gluttony or maudlin and i puerile bravado. The New Zealand Alliance made its voice heard. The Licensed Victuallers' Association waited, upon Ministers. Bui you and I, being unorganised, were inarticulate. Hence! our present position, which I may! describe as being confronted by a! /So-called voting paper on which!

there is nothing we can vote for, as I presently shall show. The Licensing Bill presents itself to my judgment, both generally and specifically, as the sorriest specimen of sordid treachery that ever has sullied our political history. Wc assented to, and welcomed, the formation of the National Government, with its extermination of party distinctions, and its merging of both parlies into one strong and stable I Government—as we thought—upon ; the explicit understanding that it would coniine itself to the one matter which we all had at heart—the j winning of the war. We consented , to forgo our electoral rights, and | to dispense with domestic legislaj tion, upon the expressed and accepted condition that nothing of a : controversial nature would be mtro- ; duced—other of course than what : might be essential to our main and 1 only purpose. The Military Service ! Act, for instance, was distinctly contentious, but if any attempt had been made to revive the controversy : about leasehold v. freehold, or , Bible in schools, it would instantly have hem shouted down. Yet, in 'the face of this understanding, ' whose terms were as explicit as those of the then Treaty of Belgium, legislation is forced upon us ! —you and me, that is, as distinct ; from the two extreme parties—--1 dealing with a matter of which Mr Massey said in introducing the measure:—"l believe it to he a fact that there is no subject in which members of Parliament take more interest, and no subject about which so much feeling is shown as is the i case in anything connected with the licensing laws of the country." And, I as though this were not enough, the Bill must needs he carried through all its stages in one sitting, extending from 1 o'clock in the afternoon j to half-past twelve at night, with intervals of four hours, by a House which frankly admitted that in the absence of our two Indispensables i it could not be trusted to- deal efliciently with a Rahbit Act. In the rush and scramble that ensued you ' and I were forgotten, our existence j was ignored, the scurrying feet passed over us. Certainly one member did make passing allusion io our hapless condition, but for all the ! chance he had of being listened to , he might as well have been speaking ; from the -window of a railway earj riage travelling at the rate of a mile ; j a minute. The Prohibitionists must be | warmly congratulated upon the skill and address with which thev conducted their part of the business. : From the outset they had two aims in view. The first was to afford Itheir adherents an opportunity of voting for Prohibition; the second ; to keep you and me away from the [polling booth. The Trade can vote !for Continuance, and, if they go I down, their fall will be broken hv a Cushion stuffed with four and ahalf million one pound notes. But you and I cannot vote for Prohibition, and we are equally adverse ; from casting that vote for Continuance, which can be cited asexpress- : ing our approval of existing conditions. What then? Well, we can i either vole to forgo our private 1 rights and close the decent hotels, or we can vote to keep the bad 'ones open. And this is the ridicu- : lous mouse that is presented to us j as the result of protracted labour ion the part of our two indispensable j mountains. This is the treatment : accorded to us by those to whom we were, entitled to look for recognition, if not for protection. Bui I am f.nol going to stop at home, nor shall , my car be idle. When Parliament refers some matter to a committee, i 'and that committee presents its re- ' port, the House may either accept ! that report, or it may reject it, or i it may refer il back Io the committee j for further consideration. I am goI ing to vote for Continuance, but i only because il supplies the only method by which I can refer the | I question back to Parliament for further consideration. As to Prohibition, the question of alcohol is not, in my case, by any means Ihe dominant consideration. I And if, in endeavouring to express! myself,.l should appear to he drift-' I ing into irrelevancy, I can but ap- j peal to your patience until the (direction in which I have been drifting shall become apparent. The! pioneer settlers of Canterbury

were a body of very noble men. Canterbury was an Anglican settlement, and many of them had been reared in the insurpassable comfort and refinement of an English vicarage. Thence they had passed to public school and university, and upon completing Iheir education they embarked upon a sailing vessel of a few hundred tons and steered their way to what was merely a trackless waste in the waters of the Southern Pacific. In the light of the present day ever-re-current whine about the dearth of reasonable facilities it would seem that these must have been men of dauntless hearts. Nor can any loss be said of those who accompanied them in obscure and humble capacities. When they climbed the hill at the back of Lyttelton, and gazed at their future home, all that the i human eye could see was a waving | sea of tussocks extending for 40 miles in one direction and 100 miles in the other. But these men were endowed with that noble gift of foresight and prophetic vision which enabled them to visualise not only the Christchurch of to-day but the Christchurch of centuries hence. |May I allude to one apparently trillling matter. Seventy years ago the lvalue of air-spaces in towns was not |so widely recognised as is the case | to-day. Yet by planting Christchurch I upon the banks of the meandering

■Avon, by running a couple of streets (diagonally across its area, by sur--1 rounding the city proper by a belt two chains in width, as well as by the square specifically provided, they filled their town with kuch airspaces as few other towns can point do. llagley Park, too, was a noble conception. Among these pioneers i were such men as Godley, the leader, (his secretary Bowen, founder of our education system; Rolleston, who set 'aside those magnificent education jand other endowments upon which j the rest of New Zealand casts such (envious eyes; Moorhousc, who promoted the Lyttelton tunnel, no small |undertaking for a handful of people |in the later sixties; and many others. I Now 1 am not going to stultify myself and insult your intelligence by (suggesting that these men were one whit the belter for the fact that they occasionally tasted something stronglei' than water. But I do assert, with 'alt the emphasis at my command, pind from what 1 knew of them, that jyon could not have offered them a 'i/reafer insult than to Suggest that they should organise and form part jof a community of prohibited persons. They did not leave England [in order to assume any newfangled (form of fetters, but rather for the .purpose of breathing a freer atmosphere, and renouncing the shackles imposed upon them by tradition, !heredity, convention, and environment. And, coming (o the wider sphere of New Zealand politics, will anyone stake ids reputation for sanity noon the assertion that the late | It. .1. Seddon ever would have come ■within 1000 miles of New Zealand lif it had been populated exclusively (by prohibited persons. Remove (from the roll of those who have swayed this country's destinies the ■names of all who would have joined (him in shunning a community consisting exclusively of prohibited persons, and what would he left? Yet iProhibition would slam the door of (New Zealand in the faces, of such (men, while throwing it open to all I the mental derelicts and degenerates |in Christendom. And that is the (only aspect of Prohibition that Ij j consider worthy of notice, so completely does if dwarf all others. We are all agreed that, it is : perhaps the most important function of any Government so, to shape its policy that throughout all classes of the community the best shall have equal and unimpeded opportunities of rising to the top. But many who subscribe to this proposition overlook the fact that it carries with it the inevitable, inexorable corollary, that the worst must remain at the bottom. That a man should resolve to live a life of abstinence, and should abide by that resolve, with liquor all around him, merely proves that he is a free citizen of a free country. And if that resolution has cost him an effort, the greater that effort the stronger is his claim upon our respect. But no greater calamity could befall any country than that

its principal offices should be filled by a lot of forlorn creatures who would have been in the gutter but for having been encased in a form of strait-jacket which prevented them from raising their, hands to their mouths. Are we, then, to convert this country into a refuge for such beings? Are we to invite them to pollute, with the watery fluid which runs in their veins, that red blood which nerved the arm and fed the brain of those to whom we owe our glorious heritage: that blood which it has been our privilege to transmit to our sons, who I have poured it in such devoted pro- ! fusion upon those altars which are ;sacred to justice and to liberty? We shall be found recreant to that blood if w r e fail to realise that there is something more in this question than an increased demand for certain commodities, and possibly fewer unIpaid bills. If we will but endeavour to look forward another 70 years II fancy we shall hesitate to convert ourselves info a community consisting exclusively of prohibited persons, a community in which the lives and interests of a vast majority of decent people would be dominated by (those of a small minority of pestilent because undisciplined wasters. But, if Prohibition, Why Compensation? When a municipality decides to establish a tramway system ; does it compensate the owners of , coaching plant? When we closed

our theatres, hotels, barbers’ shops, and other places of public resort during the recent epidemic, did we compensate the owners? Have we recouped our parsons for the loss of collections? Yet none of these people had done anything wrong. But Prohibition never has been, never will be, carried by Prohibitionists in the last resort, but by the votes of persons like ourselves who would never dream of voting for Prohibition but that they arc driven to choose between two evils. Have we compensated the owners of hotels in those electorates which have carried Prohibition in the past? The thing can only come as a punishment. You and I have done nothing to create a demand for it, we do not want it, and have not asked for it. Why should we pay the fine? There is one feature of this compensation idea which reveals the spirit in which the Act was conceived. drafted and introduced. For | hold that any Government must be judged by the Bills which it introduces, and not by the shape in which they finally find their wav on to the Statute Book. We all know what estimates are. Have you ever built, or altered, a house, for instance? T'.stimalcs are always compiled by those who are anxious to see the suggested project undertaken. What was the original estimate and what the final cost of the Napier Breakwater, the Midland - .Railway, its tunnel? What of the -very chamber in which this proposal was introduced? Ten years ago we were told that its cost would not exceed £150.000. What it lias cost to date we shall never know, hut I recall that over £90.00(1 had vanished before the foundations were visible above the surface of the ground. Again, in Vustralia we read of what happened m just exactly such a case as this—the acquisition by the State of private interests, upon the advice of iust exactly such experts, assessors, valuers as we should have to relv upon. Among other items we learn ■hat two steamers were purchased 'or £12,000. When these were found '■a he quite unsuitable, and had to he -old on a rising mivket. the highest offer they elicited was £1505. With •mch evidence of the nature of valuations where the State is concerned, the National Government positively submitted a measure in which no limit was set to the amount of compensation payable. The total amount involved in Australia was £45.000. What do you suppose would have happened where the spoils were just one hundred times as great, upon 'he estimate presented to us? And Hiat is merely one aspect of a transaction which 1 commenced by describing as “the sorriest instance of sordid treachery that ever has sullied our political history.” As a means of getting a “troublesome question ” out of the wav before the general election, the Brotherhood of Hie Jumping Gat were perfectly willing, not to say anxious, to involve us in th e contingencies 1 have suggested. Fortunately, Ihe House, despite its presumed unfitness to deal with RnhhU Aft nmviilrltml lw iho

'vim a 11 amm aci, unwatcned bv the Indisnensahlcs, was not convinced by the arguments advanced in favour of unlimited compensation. Anyhow, if compensation is deemed imperative, why understate the amount which Prohibition is to f, osl ns? The orthodox formula is that it is worth four and a-half millions to get rid of the Trade. But is it worth five or six times that amount? f may not be absolutely correct within a million or so, but we are not at present thinking in small change. Money has two standards of value. A hundred pounds is worth five pounds a year. Five pounds a year is worth a hundred pounds. We derive a million a year in taxation from liquor. At a per cent, this represents a capital sum of twenty millions. At 4?, per cent., sav twenty-two millions. This we shall have to forgo if we carry Prohibition, in addition to having to! find four and a-half millions compensation. This trifling circumstance was not mentioned in the debate—-as they called it—upon the Hill. Time was short. The steamer that was to take the Indispcnsablcs to the peace celebrations was straining at her hawsers, So it was overlooked. ft might be worth while considering whether ten millions spent upon completing our railways, ten upon hydro-electrics, two or three upon education, and as much on housing would not be as well invested as if we were to expend the 1 whole lot upon converting ourselves into a community consisting exclusively of prohibited persons. If 1

we have that amount to play with, I favour the suggestion to refer the matter back to Parliament for further consideration. I have already alluded to the position in which you and I shall find ourselves upon voting day. _ The Prohibitionists managed their part of the business with much astuteness and quite legitimately. If those from whom we wore entitled to look for protection were fast asleep, no one can blame the Prohibitionists for taking advantage of their somnolence. That they did so is unqueslionable. In this country the referendum has never been popular. In towns, where the issue has always been a ; matter of finance, and polling places within gunshot of each other, it has been fhe exception to find that more than half the electors have voted. : But the Prohibitionists will vote, j Their strength may be regarded as a 1 fixed quantity. But the number of;, others who will vote depends upon ] what there is for them to vote for. With consummate skill the Prohibi.

tionists have managed to secure a ballot paper upon which the alternative to Prohibition is about the least likely to attract voters that human ingenuity could have devised. And more than that. If Continuance does not win in April it has no other chance. The thing is over and done with. But if Prohibition loses in April it will have another chance, six months later, and if it again fails I a further chance three years after that, and so on for ever. This is the nearest the Indispcnsables can get | to a square deal after that strenuous and protracted thought to which they have made sincere and convincing reference. • In the last 2ft years, has any attempt been made to discipline either the sellers or the consumers of liquor? Is there no escape from the conclusion that the drinker must be regarded either as a hero, ora martyr, or a joke? Would it not be possible to cultivate and administer a sterner attitude towards him? Can we only deal with him by lying down in front of him and subordinating our interests to his? As to the sellers, I have always been of opinion that the most effective form of police or inspection or control that we can apply to any man is that which operates through his pocket. Establish conditions under which it will pay to behave, and you can fall upon the offender without compunction. Space per-

milling, I could supply some illuminating details of the difference between the conduct of a publican who occupied an unrestricted freehold and others whose rental simply did not allow them to do a legitimate trade. But under existing conditions a freehold hotel could be and would be sold at a price representing a rental undesirably high. A rise in the price of land may stimulate farmers to increase their turnover, but that is not desirable in the case of liquor. Moved by such considerations, I suggested 15 years ago that the principle of the Land for Settlements Act should be applied to all hotel property. If that idea had been adopted, every hotelkeeper would to-day be holding his premises at a rental representing the value, say fourteen years ago, of land and buildings, for of course the license has always been one property. His rent would be so low that he could afford to do a legitimate business, and he would possess a property of such considerable value that he would be careful not to jeopardise it. If he misbehaved we could bundle him out without compunction and as a salutary warning to others. The brewery which produced the best beer would do the largest trade, and if we were to lake over the importing business it would not only In* a source of prolit but a means of applying, at the light time and place, an effective system of inspection. Of course my proposal was laughed at. It emanated merely from "an obscure member of the parly of reaction.’’ 1 recall it as an indication that 7n odd of our most commanding intellects in conclave assembled, under indispensable guidance and control, could, if the matter were referred hack to them for further consideration. manage to discern that lying down to present conditions is not the only alternative to converting us all into a community consisting exclusively of prohibited persons. As to the good or evil effects of alcohol my own case may fairly be cited as proof that it produces neither. Tu its effects upon racial and national characteristics I cannot see how Turkey has much the best of it iu a comnarison with Germany. And as far as the results of over indulgence are concerned I believe t lie most worthy and rational method of dealing with them is to strike at their cause, which in the main may be summed up in one word—misery. No matter bow drunk he may become we do not see the rich man standing in the dock on a charge of forgery or embezzlement, and the condition of those who live in slums is more often' the cause than (lie result rtf drink. We can best strike at the cause of undue drinking by extending to the great mass of the people much greater opportunities than they now possess of living rational, comfortable, and happy lives, in rational, comfortable and happy homes, with adequate access to rational means of recreation and amusement. Having done that we could banish without compunction those whose excesses were due to gluttony or bravado. The cold-blooded suggestion that we should increase a man’s value as a slave by taking bis beer away from him, loses by comparison with the idea that we should lake the man away from beer in excess by lifting him on to a higher level of comfort and contentment. My whole case rests upon the issumplion that, as a people, we ire better fitted for such a task than "or the role of prohibited persons.