STATE CONTROL OF LIQUOR

Taranaki Daily News, 13 October 1928, Page 11

STATE CONTROL OF LIQUOR

APPARENT SUCCESS IN CANADA. TOURING BOWLER'S IMPRESSION. ■Some interesting observations on the working of State control of liquor in Canada, as seen by a tourist passing through the • country, were given to a News reporter yesterday by Mr. T. H. Horton, of New Plymouth, a member of the team of New Zealand bowlers who have just returned from a trip abroad. “As we progress through Canada,” said Mr. Horton, “we began to hear more and more of the liquor question. I must say that State Control, as adopted there, is entirely different to my preconceived idea of it. The average New Zealander, if asked for his definition of State control of the sale of liquor would, I should imagine, give the same answer as I should have given prior to going to Canada, namely, that it was a matter of change of ownership of the hotels to the State; that managers - would be appointed by the State to conduct them; that these managers would foe paid a set salary, and not participate in any profits whatever. “The State would take over the breweries and run them on the same basis. Such an arrangement would bring about a condition whereby it was nobody’s advantage to increase the sale of liquor, aud the managers would not be judged on the increase of sales, but on how they conducted their respective hotels. Any profits would be the property of the State, and to be used for State or municipal purposes. Such, broadly is (as far as I remember) the proposition as submitted to the electors under the heading of “State Control” at our elections, and such is a New Zealander's idea of what is implied in the term. “But it has a very different application as interpreted by the Canadian people. They seem to go much further than this. Upon the adoption of the system, which I was told was done without a referendum of the people, they closed every open bar throughout the Dominion. I am not sure if this was done simultaneously in every State, but to-day there is not an open bar for the sale of spirits in the whole of Canada. The State took over all existing breweries aud opened depots for the sale of spirits on a permit system. Upon payment of 8s 4d an adult citizen can obtain a permit, and each purchase is endorsed on the back thereof. He cannot open a bottle (for it is only sold by the bottle) in public, or in the depot where the purchase is made, but he can store it at his club or in his home, and consume it at his leisure, or treat his friends.

“Three commissioners were appointed for each State. These were men carefully selected for their integrity and business capabilities. Full powers were given them to refuse to supply any person abusing his license by buying more than his station of life warranted, or if the exercise of his permit was detrimental to his own or his family’s welfare in any way whatever. In one province (I believe it was in Ontario) spirits could be obtained without a license, but every bottle had to be signed for, and its destination given. But the commissioners for that province still had the right to refuse the sale, if in their judgment it was advisable to do so.

The sale of beers is treated differently. Beer licenses are held by reputable restaurant keepers, etc., and beer is served to the public under very attractive conditions, very different from there whereby men stand in a row, with their feet on a rail, and their elbows on a counter, like animals at a trough, such as obtains in New Zealand and at Home. The beer is served at tables, in the same manner as we partake of tea.

Temperance in alcoholic consumption seems to be the aim of the Canadian statesmen, and as far as our observation goes, this aim has been attained, without the necessity of drastic regulations of any kind. There is no doubt that Canada is miles ahead of all the nations we have visited in our long world tour, in this great question of temperance. On every hand we heard nothing but praise of the present system from those who had lived under the old regime of the open bar, as well .as under prohibition, for it must be remembered that Canada has tried both. 1 When in New York, some of us listened in to the speech of acceptance delivered by the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States on August 25. When he came to the question of prohibition, he (Mr. Al. Smith) cited Canada as being the one country which has solved this problem. In referring to the United States neighbour across the border aud commenting on their polities, Mr. Smith did something which reputable papers sav has never been known in American history. “We heard that Vancouver's share of last year’s distribution of the State s profits derived from the sale of liquor was £300,000.”