LIQUOR QUESTION

Te Aroha News, Volume XLI, Issue 6408, 30 October 1923, Page 3

LIQUOR QUESTION

CORPORATE CONTROL SCHEME REJECTED BY SYNOD That the Prime Minister be communicated with reminding him of his promise to introduce drastic reforms of the liquor trade was the decision of the Diocesan Synod, at the conclusion of a debate on the licensingquestion. Four motions were proposed by Canon Williams, the principal one being that Synod should communicate with the Prime Minister reminding, him of his promise to introduce drastic reform of the licensing trade. The second was that Synod should commend to the earnest and careful considerate of Christian people the corporate control scheme formulated by the Corporate Control Board. It was recommended that the committee appointed by the Bishop and clergy should take steps to organise public opinion in the direction of licensingreform. A further' proposal was that the attitude of Synod be made known to the archbishop, and to the bishops of the province. When the debate was resumed, Canon James led off by stating that those who issued the manifesto, “Challenge Answered,” spoke for themselves as citizens, and not for the Church, as had been suggested. Prohibition had signally failed to commend itself to the majority of electors at the 1922 poll, the largest poll ever taken. This meant that prohibition was not coming soon, and the question now was what was best to do at once to help the weaker brother. Would anybody say that they would not have reform now because it would prejudice the chances of prohibition later on?

If corporate control were introduced the trade would only be more firmly entrenched, made safer and more respectable, without anything having been done in the way of destroying the evils, said Rev. P. S. Greenfield.

Total abolition was the only reform that could go forth from the Synod as being approved, said Rev. G. Coates. A number of others contributed to the debate. THE BISHOP’S VIEW Corporate control was not nearly drastic enough to the mind of Bishop Averill, apd he cohld not support it. He disagreed with the principle of making the State a party to’ the liquor .traffic. Corporate control would not prevent any of the misery, suffering and poverty caused by the trade.

An amendment was proposed by Mr C. F. Bennett, that an addition be made to the first motion—words to the effect that the’licensing- issue be confined to two, prohibition and corporate control, the ‘ issue of continuance to be excluded altogehter. This was lost on the voices.

Canon Williams being confined to his bed, he was not able to reply. R6v. Gordon Bell sought the right to reply. The Bishop stated that the standing order would be suspended if consent to the proposal were unanimous. When the motion was put there was one dissentient and emphatic voice, and right of Reply by Mr Bell was therefore disallowed.

The only motion carried unanimously was: —“That Synod communicate with the Prime Minister reminding hitn of his promise to introduce drastic reforms of the licensing laws.” Other motions were deleted on the voices before this was put on the' motion of the Rev. Wood.