The Tumeka Leader THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1888. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1726, 19 April 1888, Page 2

The Tumeka Leader THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1888. THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

On last Saturday the Hon. the Premier was deputationisedinDunedin by Good Templars. The report in the Otago Daily Times says the deputation was numerous, and doubtless it is thus correctly represented for altogether about half a dozen persons made speeches dealing with the liquor traffic from various points of view. There was nothing out of the common in any of the speeches, but a paragraph in the address which the Good Templars presented is deserving of notice. It was as follows “ With serious apprehension we learned that some members of the Government appeared to view with favor the re-establishment of distilleries in the colony, and we would desire to impress upon Ministers the fact that the conversion of grain into distilled liquor is a direct waste of a valuable product in the manufacture of an article possessing no nutritious quality. The grain consumed is destroyed,' and the labor and plant employed fob the purpose are worse than wasted. It is more profitable to the farmer to feed hogs with his surplus corn than to sell it to the distiller, and that course would be very much more beneficial to the community. The economics of this question deserve the moat careful consideration before the colony is again committed to the re-establishment of a business which can only prove unprofitable, and which has already cost the taxpayer so much,” Now we are as favorable to temperance as any paper in New Zealand whhh dqes not profess to be running in the temperance interest altogether, but we certainly cannot endorse this. We are ready to admit that the conversion of grain into distilled liquor is waste, and that it would be far more useful to mankind if made into more substantial food, but that is not at all the question involved in the proposal to re-establish distilleries in this colony. The question involved in such a proposal is : Shall we continue to send immense sums of money every year to foreign countries for liquor or shall we produce it locally and keep this money amongst ourselves ? That is the question involved in the pro blem which Parliament will very likely be asked to legislate upsn, and not the imprudence of converting an article, which is reckoned amongst the best of human foods, into a liquid which oftentimes destroys human reason. Where the Good Templars went wrong was in taking things as thay ought to be instead of as they are. The point of view from which Good Templars generally look at the liquor traffic is that it is detrimental to health and morals, and inimical to individual and national prosperity. We agree with them in this, but in what respect will the place in which the liquor is made influence morality or health? Will not imported whiskey make a man drunk as well as home-made whiskey ? and will not men waste their money on Glenlivet or Dunville whiskey as well as they would on whiskey made in Dunedin ? From the moral, and health, and individual prosperity point of view, therefore, the imported whiskey is likely to exercise as bad, if not a worse, influence than homemade liquor, and as regards the national prosperity point of view, the home-made liquor will decidedly have the best of it. We send away immense sums yearly for the purchase of whiskey to foreign countries. That money is entirely lost to the colony. It is spent worse than if it were thrown into the sea. Now supposing the whiskey we import was made locally this money would remain in the colony. The farmers who grow the grain would get some of it; the men who would harvest it would be paid for their labor; the railways would be paid for carrying the grain to the distillery, and also freight for the carriage of the distilled liquor. The men employed in the distilleries would get their share, apd the distiller himself would be able to pocket the profit. Thus the money which we now send out of thecolony wouldbe sent afloat amongst ourselves, and while no one could possibly be a bit the worse for it the colony w.Qijld be much the better for the change. The Good Templars aim at the complete annihilation of the liquor traffic, and in that we sympathise with them, but, ip the name of all that is good and sensible, how will the nonestablishment of local distilleries affect that question, while we still have left the power to import liquor ? If the Good Templars had started by urging on the Premier the desirability of not allowing any liquor at all to come into the colony, and then objected to the establishment of local distilleries, their grounds would have been more logical, but if we are to continue wasting millions on liquor at all let us waste it at home.

There is another question involved in this which the Q-ood Templars have not touched- It is said that if the local distilleries are started the revenue from liqnpr w jll diminish and thus disorganise finance, passing over the absurdity of the necessity pi sending our money out of the coiotty in order that the Colonial Treasurer might have funds, wo say there is no reason why more revenue could not be derived from liquor if a portion of it

were locally made than there is now. 1 The present duty on whiskey is 14s per gallon. This duty could be raised, and an excise duty of 14s per gallon placed on locally-made liquor, and in that way protection could be given to local distilleries, while the revenue could not possibly lose by the transaction. We want to conserve all our energies ; we want to keep in the colony every peney we can, and so long as we drink whiskey it would be wise to make it for ourselves instead of giving our money to foreigners for making it for us.