THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1925, Page 3

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

PROHIBITION CAMPAIG X. ADDRESSES AT NEW PLYMOUTH. Tito Hon, G. Fowlds and Mr. R. Laidlaw, of Auckland, furthered the cause of prohibition at a well attended public meeting in the Empire Theatre at New Plymouth last night. Mr. H. Cocker presided, the speakers being accorded an attentive hearing throughout. Could prohibition prohibit the evil of I he drink trailio without being followed by other evils? asked Mr. Fowlds, in intioducing Ids subject. In the speaker’s opinion It could. The speaker said he was, for a number of years, Minister for Education, and also in charge of mental hospitals in New Zealand. The inquiries made in regard to delinquent and neglected children, and mental defectives were astounding. The number of the former shown in 1924 was slightly over ’5OOO and 80 per cent, of those children had come under the care of the State through alcoholic drinking by either one or other of their parents. The cost to the State of maintaining those children -was £llO,OOO. The same investigation revealed that the number of delinquent and neglected children coming from the no-license area was negligible. Mr. Fowlds pointed out that three years ago the liquor people stated that £2,500,000 would be contributed by them to the State, and if prohibition were carried this would be lost, and taxation would have to be increased. However, the liquor revenue amounted to only £1,<550,000 and the drunkards, and other institutions largely produced as a result of alcoholism was greater than this amount. He claimed that this country would experience difficult}' in carrying on with the enormous waste in this connection.

Despite all the education that had gone on in New Zealand, and . the fact that they possessed several no-license districts, their liquor bill was annually increasing. In 1902 it amounted to £0,000,000, in 1923 to and in 1924 to £8,500,000. This was equivalent to an increase of from £5 2a 3d per head to £6 5s lid per head. That was a drain on the population of the country. The cry of the possibility of increased taxation induced a lot of people to vote against prohibition, but the suggestion was contrary to all the experiences of countries where prohibition existed. Prohibition would stimulate trade and industry.

In referring to the suggestion that dope fiends were increasing in America, the speaker denied the authenticity of the statements. In 1924 the United States Health Department estimated that the largest number of drug addicts was reached in 1900, when there were 250,000 of these, unfortunates in the country. Since that date the number of drug addicts had decreased in America.

In quoting an instance whereby the farming community had benefited by the enforcement of prohibition, Mr. Fowlds remarked that the consumption of milk in America was now far greater than it was in any other country. There was not the slightest doubt that the coming of prohibition had provided more health and comfort and amenities of life for the children of America. In conclusion Mr. Fowlds stated that Sffate control did not afford relief. Prohibition was the only way of checking the. liquor traffic. At the outset of his address, Mr. Laidlaw likened the liquor traffic to the cuttle-fish, for it seemed to try and cloud the vision of electors. They asked the people to give them aii enormous order for nothing, and in return undertook to fill the country’s gaols, hospitals and homes with misery indescribable. Dealing with the suggestion that prohibition would create unemployment in the country, Mr. Laidlaw pointed out that 7641 people were connected with the trade, and of this number 5653 were cooks, waitresses, etc. The latter would not be thrown out of employment, for people would still require -accommodation and food. America, under prohibition, had the best hotel service in the world. The only people thrown out of positions would be barmaids, barmen and brewery workers, numbering less than 2000. These people would be given six months in which to change their occupations. By voting for continuance, a person would be throwing more men out of work due to drink- than he would by voting prohibition'. Touching on the advantages of prohibition, the speaker explained that in five years prohibition in the States had saved over one million lives, or more lives had been saved than Great Britain lost in the war. If prohibition was made law in New Zealand 2500 lives would be saved per annum on the same percentage. At the conclusion of the meeting the speakers were accorded hearty votes of thanks for their addresses. The council of the Taranaki Prohibition League entertained a number of New Plymouth business men at luncheon yesterday, when short addresses on vari-1 ous aspects of the prohibition movement were given by Mr. Fowlds and Mr. Laidlaw, of Auckland.