DEMOCRACY AND DRINK

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10926, 15 November 1913, Page 1

DEMOCRACY AND DRINK

V WHY NOT STATE CONTROL? This was the subject of "P.C.F.'s" recent.article. . In it ho put some hypothetical .questions to licensed victuallers concerning their position as traders; and; although; the sub-title of the article was • a: question also,, there was not a word of argument favourable to Stato control in the whole article. It was .all a series of questions. Children ask questions, but it takes wise men to answer .them. Inforontially I'.Q.F. is a-child making childish inquiries.: The only difference may bo that P.C.F. puts his questions with a view to embarrassing rather than to enlightenment or information. The catechising of licensed victuallers will not do them, any harm, and for the benefit of P.C.F.'s of the community the •'"Star." ought to give the same prominence to .the answers as it did to the. questions. Aro : the.'licensed victuallers of New Zealand' entitled to "render articulate a large mass of public'opinion " in this country?: Certainly; because they . represent directly of the community and indirectly every man and woman who desires to' conserve 'the privilege of purchasing legitimate alcolholic beverages.' Aro. iio licensed victuallers . really concerned with the "public .welfare "7 . , Truly, They and their trade are 60 intimately associated with, the public welfare that ajvy injury to the one is an injury to the other. . ; Do the licensed- victuallers really ; "represent 1 the sentiments 'of • that large t body of moderate people' who stand midway between the parties '"'( . . ■ Yes; because moderate people—i.e., temperate users of alcoholic liquors--have for the most part supported licensed victuallers in favour of lawful drinking under license as against unlawful drinking under no-license. Do the licensed victuallers really voice the views and "opinions, of the "thousands of men and women whom they now employ " ? Certainly; oven journalists, however different may be their personal views, are loyal to the policy of the paper that pays them. Does P.C.F. imagine hotel employees' aro any better than journalists? ■ ■ Is it ;tho duty .of the, licensed . victuallers of iN'ew Zealand, to " protect the prohibitionists against consequences of their own rashness"? , . ' . . If, a prohibitionist, was drowning himself in' his own- mill pond and a licensed victualler was. passing by, it would bo the duty of the Licensed Victualler t<r save his brother even from the consequences of too much water at that place; ' Are the licensed ' victuallers concerned about evils, which. "no public spirited Government would, lightly bring upon the country "?.-'■■ As a class Licensed Victuallers are pub lie-spirited.. They, are alive to the destroying, stagnating and immoral issues of no-license and prohibition; and therefore they say that no publicspirited Government would lightly bring these evils upon tho country. Are tho licensed victuallers concerned to " savo . the country from falling into that whirlwind- of insecurity and instability into whioh liquor legislation carried by a Binall minority would certainly precipitate it"? Too true, they -'are- Prohibitionists would destroy over five million worth of property, from the trade possessors of which the country draws over one million, sterling annually. Ought not every elector to bo concerned about that also, for what affects ono trade detrimentally must affect all? That is a.n ecoruomc, law. Are the licensed victuallers anxious lest the "' barriers ."liould be swept away" and lest the " security of the public • interests should bo endangered " ? They are most assuredly, because of the large interests they hold in the dominion. If by the rash act of the prohibitionists the country loses one millio?i sterling per annum will not the "security of the public interests bo endangered?'' New Zealand's credit in London would bo shaken. (Vide ''Financial News," London, April 8, 1915.) Are the licensed victuallers concerned lest "a. largo number of people should be deprived of the harmless indulgence of a natural instinct"? Licensed Victuallers are the legitimate purveyors of alcoholic beverages and many thousands would be deprived of their ".harmless indulgence " if prohibitionists had their way, hence, of course, the Licensed Victuallers concern. Besides, it is their means of livelihood. Aie the licensed victuallers the people to go to ascertain the " purposes of tho democracy to secure the greatest possible number with the minimum risk of insecurity ,<ind instability "? Publicans arc just as capable of ascertaining: tho purposes of the democracy as prohibitionists; and the former's opinion is worth moro because they 'have perforce made a life-long study of the matter. An: wo to believe the licensed victuallers when they aßserl that tho hare majority " hi"; been rejected by the lending representative? of extreme democratic sentiment throug'hout the world under all cirannstan-

ccs Vhere stability and security are essential to success "?

Yon may or may not believe it; that is vour * affair—one cannot help another's unbelief. But the fact stands, and the assertion is capable of proof.

Are the licensed victuallers right in saying that Mr Tom Mann is a man " vrho might be supposed to. speak for the whole of the British .democracy at once" in his refusal to "accept the bare majority"?

On the occasion of the British Royal Commission, before whom Mr Mann spoko and refused to accept _" a. bare majority -vote" on tho question of an eight-hour day, Tom Mann "might be supposed to speak for the whole of the British democracy at once." Certainly, the Licensed' Victuallers are right iii selecting Tom Mann as at once capable of expressing the views of the democracy of England.

Are .the licensed victuallers unprejudiced in claiming that by the carrying of prohibition ■by a small majority "a large minority, of moderates will be practically disfranchised " and thereby " all tho principles of enlightened legislation and democratic government" subverted?

It might be asked is the questioner unprejudiced in putting the question; but YshotheV'hb is or .the Licensed- Vic* tualleYs are -is .beside the point. If prohibition "is carried certainly a Ihrgo minority of moderates would be "out of court"—disfranchised. Yet thore would be no moral turpitude in,violating a prohibitionist imposed law which would be a subversion of moral and democratic authority. Are.the licensed victuallers genuinely and patriotically concerned a3 to the effect prohibition would have "on" the country's industry and finance"?

Of'course they are. They havo about five millions of real estate at stake, and through them over one _ million .pounds sterling find their way into the public account. Besides they are interested directly in the maintenance of over 100.000 souls. Are the licensed victuallers entitled to utter a covert threat that " a minority unjustly coerced is not likely to accept such humiliation tamely"?

Yes. Why should men and women having such large interests in the country, why should a minority of moderate men and women using and not abusing alcoholic liquors, tamely submit to having their properties destroyed by prohibitionists and their liberty to eat and drink what they liko and spend their 6ixpennies as ( they have a mind to be taken from them by a, lot of other folks calling themselves prohibitionists, who, besides their ahusive and destroying tactics, have . adopted a dog-manger policy ?

Are the. licensed rictuallers of 2\"ew Zealand primarily concerned in maintaining the existing liquor monopoly without reference to any consideration other than that relating to the pounds, shillings and pence which go jingling into their tills from day to day? The policy of the prohibition party has ■encouraged the creation of the alleged monopoly. Tho prohibitionists cut down the licenses and have carried no-license in certain districts, and that, .while not diminishing the aggregate consumption of liquor, has driven the trade into fewer hands, and created an alleged monopoly. As the Licensed Victuallers have opposed tho policy of the prohibitionists they are not primarily concerned in maintaining it. Prohibitionists'seek to reduce the number of hotel licenses. Licensed Victuallers would be pleased if their number was enlarged. As parsons and journalists are not in their business for tho good their health, so to speak, so Licensed Victuallers and brewers c&peet to live out of the occupation to which they have been called. How is it that a large number of the publichouses in New Zcalnndaro more concerned in selling liquor than in carrying out their primary function of providing accommodation for the travelling public?

This is not true. The bench will not o-.ra.nc licenses unless the premises provide adequate accommodation. And one has only to look around to see what vast sums are invested in hotels to «ee how ridiculous this question is. Recollect, too, that all these line hotels and the provisions they supply for the travelling public would be destroyed by the votes of the prohibitionists if they have their way. How is it that the quality of the liquor in many hotels throughout tho country is so questionable ?

That oontains an assertion without proof. If P.C.F. knows of any let him inform the authorities and have the culprit brought to punishment. But it is cheap criticism, if there was any truth in it. to say that because ono man sanded his sugar that the whole grocery trade should bo condemned.

How is it that no concerted attempt hns been by those in control of this monopoly to bieir palatable liquors of mcdcrr.te 'alcoholic t-trcngth?

Thin question displays either deplorable lack of knowledge or a. disordered palate. '

Mow is it that tho ticd-ho-ass monopoly ha* become ouch en evil, despite the endeavours of tho Legislature to control it ? There are tied houses in every trade and business in this country and ius far as the Licensed Victuallers' trade is concerned tho policy of the prohibitionists' has been largely instrumental in its developments. Even newspapers are ,! tied" to the political policy or

party to which their proprietors be- j long. . ' How is it that drunken men _' and pro- , Jiibited persons aro continually being served in public bars throughout the country? Not continually, but occasionally. As misstatements occasionally get into a .newspaper, so prohibited persons may be served unwittingly. Licensed Victuallers know that drunken men, prohibitionists and prohibited persons are their worst enemies, and they do not for thejr trade's sake encourage them. How is it that Magistrates and the Supreme Court Judges are ' continually complaining of tho grave offences against " tho public. welfare" committed by intoxicated Occasionally should bo the word. Besides " grave " offences are seldom committed by intoxicated men. lutosicated men aro practically incapable of "grave" otfenees. Sir Robert Stout, Ohiof Justice, at Napier on September 15, 1913, said: " Not only has prison population decreased relatively to the population, but serious (i-e., grave) crime has absolutely decreased." How is it that the Legislature found it necessary in the publio interests to gradually abolish, barmaids?..,-~> ... ■.,. . ..,»»*«<■■ Wo,'do not lcnow. Perhaps P.C.F. could say. ' And how ,is it that the Trade, despite indication of public sentiment there plainly given, took advantago of a flaw in the Act to force their own advantage against the "desire 3 of Democracy"? The democracy did not so express it-! self. Besides, every employer of labour is looking for the best and most honest service in either man or woman. How is it that while the Trade organisers in some centres have taken . the precaution to officially supervise tho licensees in order to check evasions of the law, other localities are notoriously las in fiat respect? The police and the licensing bench are tho authorities that supervise licensees, and in all localities it is presumed thoy are efficient. The first are public officers and the second are mostly prohibitionists. How is it that with licenses stationary the drink bill mounts and mounts and profits are continually concentrating in fewer hands? People are evidently determined not to have_ their liberties curtailed by prohibitionists. The qu&stion presumably proves that the contraction of facilities to use alcoholic beverages cannot lessen the demands of the people for such beverages. The fewer the hotels the moro the people use them. Tho increase in the drink bill and the decrease of serious (i.e., grave) crime seem to nullify tho arguments of prohibitionists for no-license. How is it that the leaders of the Labour movement regard the publichouses as the greatest hindrance to the social advancement of the men they are trying to benefit ? And how is it that Labour leaders are not prohibitionists? And how is it that the great Labour Conference at Wellington would have nothing to do with prohibition as a plank in the platform of the party? And how is it that tho people who consume the most alcohol stand highest in culture and morality and progress all tho world over? i How is it that while the' monopoly grows bigger tho hotels are constantly' deteriorating and the cry for compensation grows louder and louder? Wo have shown who are responsible for the monopoly, if it exists, and we know that most of the. hotels have boon enlarged and rebuilt in recent years, and if compensation is sought for all tin's expenditure, why should it not be provided? Why is, it that so many of the publicans' customers consistently vote no-license at every poll? Some. For the same reason that some journalists and newspaper employees vote contrary to tho policy of tho paper that employs them B t.dnuboo hrdlu that employs them. But nobody thinks much of that or of them. Why, if the question is one of morals, of the public welfare of statesmanship and of finance—as the licensed victuallers emphasise—should not the people establish c'l-an, comfortable, \rell-eonduc!cd, vrell-equippcci liquor saloons of their own, and devote tho profits to tho "welfare of tho country'' and to agencies " for the greatest J,ood of the greatest number"? This is the only question that suggests State control, and on an equitable basis there is much to be said in its favour. Prohibition and no-Kconso aro policies of destruction, stagnation and sly groggeries. Licensing is preferable. State control would enable the Stele to absorb all the profits of a consumption that prohibition and' nolicense have not lessened; but State control and the promotion of temperance—which is not prohibition or nolicense, but an active virtue—would enable tho nation to avoid tho evils of i no-lir.enso on the one hand nud absorb i nil tho profits for the public weal on the other. Let P.C.F. urge the submitting of State control to the vote for the democracy. J.TAS. Wellington, November 5.