THE MIDDLE COURSE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16906, 4 December 1922, Page 9

THE MIDDLE COURSE.

CASE FOR STAIE CONTROL. MODERATE LEAGUE MEETING AT THEATRE ROYAL. AN ENTHUSIASTIC AUDIENCE. A packed house greeted Mr R. A. Armstrong - , Dominion Secretary of the New Zealand Moderate League, in the 'Theatre Royal last evening, and applauded vigorously his exposition of the case for State Control of the liquor trade. Mr J. .1- Dougall presided and among those on tl\e platform were Dr E. Levinge, chairman of the executive. Dr John Guthrie, John Anderson Jr.. Mr Arnaud M Kellar, Professor T R. Blunt. Messrs Jos. Studholme, R. W. "Walker and G. Jameson, Dr Ross and Messrs W. F. Herrick. A. L. Cropps and Dr C. Morton Anderson. Mr Dougall said Mr Armstrong had made a very deep study of the liquor question and also of State Control, which was in existence in various parts of the world to-day. So far as New Zealand was concerned State 1 ontrol was something new. It offered to citizens the middle course. They did not expect to see the State Control issue carried at the next poll, because the people of New Zealand had not been sufficiently educated on the subject, but he believed there would be such a vote as would show that there were a great number of people who did not agree with prohibition or with the present way in which the trade was carried on. (Applause). Previously there was no alternative—it was either prohibition or the trade in its present state. He welcomed the criticism that had been levelled at the Moderate League because it was evidence that the League was being taken seriously The league was not in league with the trade, as had been suggested. That suggestion had been given an emphatic denial on several occasions, and the assurance had been given by men whose word should be taken. The Moderate League was in no way connected with the trade. Whatever they were doing they were doing off their own bat. (Applause). The Moderate League believed that it would be bad to follow America. ‘Hear, hearb He condemned as untrue a statement that appeared in the “ Methodist Times ” that in “dear drink-ridden Old England” they were eager to make any little progress towards sobriety. It was a statement that should not be made by any sane, right-thinking man or woman in any part of the British Empire. The paper invited New Zealanders to follow America—the country that took three years to go into the war, and during that three years raked in the money from the Allies till it was gorged with wealth. And they were told not to follow the country "that had given freedom and liberty" to the world. (Applause!. A Voice: What about Scotland? Mr Dougall: Well, Scotland has been a very material factor in making Englishmen what they are. (Applause). Mr Armstrong, who was received with applause, said it gave him great pleasure to address such a representative audience. He thanked the men who had worked to place the Moder--ate League on so sound a footing in Christchurch. A TEMPERATE PEOPLE. Mr Armstrong said the first question wt must ask ourselves was: Did New Zealand really need prohibition ? International statistics showed New Zealand to be the most temperate country i.i the world. (Applause.) The people rmst not be led astray by prohibition propaganda, but must judge for themselves. What did they see of drunkenness here? The Government official statistics showed that, whereas in 1914 the convictions for drunkenness totalled 1d.480, in 1916 they were 10.998; in 1917 they were 8897 ; in 1921 they had diopped to 8S0!. a. decrease of nearly 40 per cent, and this notwithstanding the fact that 4,000,000 more gallons of spirits had been consumed in 1921 than in 1914. Surely that was progressive temperance. Jt indicated that greater l.umbers of the people of this country were using alcoholic beverages in a sensible and moderate fashion, and that the excessive drinker was becoming a diminishing figure. Even taking the figures as they stood for 1921, it would be found that* c-nly some 6000 would be individual cases. It was nonsense to suggest that over a thousand people should V)o deprived of their right to, enjoy a good tiling because six people did not know how to use it without abusing it. (Applause.) The figures foj 1917 were of particular importance because they disproved the contention of the prohibitionist that the decrease closing. (Hear, hear.) PARTICULAR AND GENERAL CASES. Mr Armstrong said that the prohibitionists made a great outcry about the quantity of liquor consumed in New Zealand, and at a casual glance the figures looked tremendous. To say offhand that fourteen million gallons of .bear were consumed in 1921 would make it appear that New Zealanders were a frightfully *• beery ” people ; but if anyone took a piece of paper and a pencil lie would find that the daily allowance per head of tlie population worked out at a quarter of a pint of beer, a quarter of an ordinary nip of spirits. (Applause ami laughter.) Even allowing that half the population did not drink at all. it would be seen that the amount per individual did not reach even a medicinal dosage. In these circumstances it could be fairly claimed that New Zealand was the most temperate and sober country in the world. Jt was obvious, therefore, that abuse was particular and not general. That being the case, the remedy should be particular and not general. (Applause.) Let all reasonable steps be taken to try and save from themselves by regulation and control those individuals who, whether through physical weakness, lack of self-control, or gluttony, went beyond the bounds ; but t . suggest a prohibition of a whole community because of the fault of a few was not within the bounds of reason. All the outcry about the consumption of liquor, when the matter v,as reduced to its true and scientific basis, was so much hot air. ” Instead of trying to make us appeal' a drunken country in order to scare innocent electors into voting for prohibition, the Prohibition Party should bo loyal to New Zealand and proclaim the truth. Mr Armstrong illustrated his point with a cartoon showing a prominent prohibition lecturer reaching out u. grasp a pot of beer. “It is an old saying among the people,” said Mr Armstrong. “ that the meanest man on earth is the man who pinches another fellow’s beer while his back is turned.” (Loud laughter.) PRIME MINISTER’S PROMISE. It was because of a recognition of the truth of this matter and the urgent need for organisation to protect the rights of the moderate public that tim Moderate League had been form ed in 1914. They had no

connection whatever with the trade,” which they looked upon merely ns purveyors to a public demand. (Applause.) If they were fight j ing a more honourable foe it would bt l unnecessary to have to repeat that f statement as they had to do. (Hear, hear.) it was the dutv of the league to endeavour to get the test possible service to the moderate public, to elimI mate, abuses connected with the liquor [ traffic. The league, since it was formed : in 1914, had not been idle in spite of vrhi’t was said to the contrary by their opponents, and had made repeated representations to the Government re—i garding amendment of the licensing I law’. Their activities had resulted in a i closer supervision of the ” trade,” and i in this respect some credit could be | c-luimed for the improved statistics ot i sobriety. In 1910 they had asked tho ; Prime Minister to bring in tin entirely i new Licensing Act; but he had replied ! that the united attention of the oouni try and Parliament was required for | matters arising out of the war. and j that therefore the time was not opportune. As reasonable people, who view • ed the liquor question in just proportion to other matters of State, they could do nothing lint agree with his attitude. (Hear, hear.) Since the war had ended, however, they had approached the Government on several occasions, and now the Prime Minister had definitely promised that, if prohibition were not carried at the approaching poll, reform of tho licensing law's in the public interest would be one of the first duties of the new Parliament. j Here was a great opportunity for the i moderate section to make themselves j heard—for all supporters of true temI perance to fall into line to secure an j effective licensing law. (Applause.) It | was a notorious fact- that the present mixture of restriction and ineffective ! ness now posing on tho Statute Book j as New Zealand’s licensing law had j been framed chiefly on compromise bo- | tween the two extreme parties; the | prohibitionists working for mere rej striction ns opposed to reform, and the 1 “ trade ” seeking every opportunity | for extension of their trading rights. The moderate section must awake to the danger of this method. The average prohibition leader did not have brains enough to receive phil osopliv on this subject. (Hear, hear.) He appealed to tho great body of the people of tho country. He appealed t;> them to vote for State Control and not to waste their vote on prohibition, because prohibition wa:- going to be defeated. (Loud applause.) THE LEAGUE’S POLICY. It was necessary that the people should know why the Moderate League i was advocating Stgte control. The first reason was that they believed that the elimination of the element of private profit in the sale of liquor was the first to temperance reform. (Applause.) The public interest would become the first consideration. All liquors supplied and services rendered would carry a State guarantee. The j present stand-up bar would be slip | planted by a comfortable cafe system, | and reconstruction would be carried : out with a view to improved hygiene. • Environment would he improved to the | highest standard with consequent, ef- ! feet on the people patronising the varij ous institutions, and freedom would be secured for experiments in the inter - I ests of temperance reform. (Applause.; j Even under the existing law. State | purchase would be a splendid financial j proposition for New Zealand ; but under the Moderate League’s proposals A j would be an absolute gift. (Applause.) ; Briefly, the amendments proposed bv j the league were that if at any time the people carried State Control all licenses should lapse one year from June 30 following the poll. That during that period the Government should have the right to take over any part of tho " trade ” properties and inteiests, oi none at all, as it saw- fit, in accordance with its obligations to provide a propei service for the people. Payment would be made only for those properties taken over, and there would be no liability or compensation for tho properties left on the hands of the trade. The prohibitionists were endeavouring to scare the electors o4H State Control by saying that millions of money would be required to purchase the “ trade ” interests. This was not correct. No cash would bo required at all. Payment could bo made by way of in-terest-bearing Government securities, which form of payment the trade had committed itself to receive in its petition of 1918. Tho taking over of the business by the State would be paper j transaction only. It would mean that i 1 all the profits now going to private j ‘ bands would go into the national Xrea- . j 6Ui*y, and would he available for numer- | ous public purposes. j A Voice : State Control is a rod her- | Mr Armstrong: Well, my friend, you I must have a particularly keen nose! In j any case, so far as a red herring is con* j cerned, I know what is best to bav-* i with it. (Laughter and loud applause.) j Air Armstrong said that prohibition i ! fists had been trying to frighten the people by telling them that the price ot State purchase would be from £15.000,000 to £20.000.000. The cost would be only a little over £9.000,000. A Voiqe : They have come down. Mr Armstrong: No; the trade has never opened its mouth as to what it thinks. The Moderate League told the people in 1919 that the amount involved was a little over £9.000.000, and they say so still. (Applause.) A BRITISH METHOD. State Control might- be termed the British solution of the liquor problem. r llie League was not asking the electors to vote for a vague and indefinite scheme. State Control had been tried in Great Britain and in Canada with ! most conspicuous success. (Hear, j hear.) In Britain the Government had taken ) over the whole of the tra.de ” inter- j efts in the Carlisle and Gretna areas j as a war measure. Tho system had j proved so successful that the British j Government was still carrying it on. I The late British Home Secretary had i stated in an interview with the Nottingham “Express ” (April 20. 1922) that “ ho was of opinion that when State management had been properly tested and was properly understood, it would commend itself to the great maj< rity of tli€i people of the country. Believing as he did in the success of the scheme ho lived in the hope that it would be extended to other places.” (Applause.; The chief constable of Carlisle had written to the Moderate League in May of this year declaring himself “ still perfectly satisfied with the conditions existing in Carlisle to-day.” f j he whole of the clergy in Carlisle and district had signed a. memorial expressing their support and admiration of the system, and stating, “We hope that future legislation concerning the traffic in strong drink will follow the lines which have proved so beneficial in the Carlisle area.” j By the last English mail letters i had come to (he League from numbers j of clergymen in England, from leaders I of industry and science, from such a 1 • noted thinker as Sir Oliver Lodge, all | strongly in favour of State Control as opposed to prohibition, and wishing j the League success in its endeavour to bring sanity to bear on the liquor quesi tion in New Zealand. Mr Armstrong’s j quoted extensively from these letters, (and pointed to the fact that such testimonies could not be ignored and must

| appeal to all thinking people, a st&tej inent that was received with warm apI plans©. I STATE CONTROL IN CANADA. | The Prohibition Party had been I boasting of Canada being “ bone drj'. i (Laughter.) But, as in the case of Ic*»I land, Canada was now conspicuous by | its absence from prohibition propaj ganda. The reason was easily discoveri 3d. Prohibition had failed in Canada ! just as it wa»s failing in America, i (Hear, bear.) The Province of Quebec | had tried prohibition for two year*. I Speaking of the “ dry ” period, the ! Premier, Mr L. Tasehoreau. statt ©S; ” Is aoi a man of good faith | who will not admit that it was disas- | irons both from the point of view of ; temperance and of public, morals.” To j save the province from the frightful I rees* created by prohibition the Govi cinment decided to institute the sysj tem of State Control, which exist® to j day. Under the Quebec system light | vines and heer are sold by the glass ; in cafes and with meals in restaurj ants and hotel:- : but spirits can only be : oltained in sealed and guaranteed | packages from Government depots. ; The. extracts from the newspaper ar- ! tide enclosed by the Premier showed j a most remarkable state of .affairs in j connection with the “dry” province of .Manitoba. The. extra stated: “It was reported that during the year 1,211,461 prescriptions for liquor were irsued. This is almost two prescriptions for every man, woman and child ir. the province. (Daughter.) The amount of liquor covered by these prescriptions was 510,993 gallons, equivalent to 3.06 > 978 quart bottles. This represents a value of 12,263,912 dollars. Tnat is only about two million dollars less than the sales under I the open system of Government sale in , Quebec, and the population of Manii teba is one-fo »rth that of Quebec.” : The people of the supposed “ dry” province of Manitoba, consumed on medical | prescriptions four times as much per j capita- as “ wet ” Quebec under State | Control. Tn tho prohibition province ! of Manitoba- die people consumed more | spirits per head than we did in New Zealand. (Applause.) Mr Armstrong quoted the opinions j oi the most prominent men in the proj vince of Quebec to show that the inI stitution of State Control was a real ; solution of the liquor problem. These | included the Chiefs of Police, the medi- | col directors of public hospitals, and ' Dr Williams fßishop of Quebec). These j were statements of responsible men j who had no interest whatever in the question apart from this desire to see I that the best possible state of affairs | was brought about for the good of S their citizens. ' ‘Have you got the envelopes?” called an into,*lector. “ Wlnit envelopes?" asked Mr Armstrong. “ The envelopes those letters came Air Armstrong: 1 can quite expect that kind of .abuse from the prohibij tionists. (I.oud applause and cheering.) , The originals of these •documents are in j my strong-room in Wellington, and are j available for inspection by anybody. THE ISSUES. j As on the last occasion, tlrree issues ! would be submitted to doctors. Prohi- ! bition would be carried if one more ! vote than 50 per cent was recorded in | it; favour. The State Control vote j would be joined to continuance as ! against prohibition, and this was very | proper, as State control was a form of ! continuance, being continuance of the j right of free choice for the individual. I State control could also be carried on i a 50 per cent vote; but as both the j prohibition party and the trade were j opposed to it. and as the law governing the issue needed it did not appear likely that the third issue would be carried at this poll. The league, however, strongly urged tin? moderate electors to record their votes fc r - State control as a means of expressing to the Government their opinion that reform of the licensing law was immediately needed. The prohibitionists were making a gioat outcry and stating that the ballot paper was unfair to them. There was nothing unfair about it. If the prohibitionists could convince one more than fifty per cent of the electors that they were right then prohibition would he carried. It had nothing whatever to do with the prohibitionists if those who believed in tho liberty of the subject in this matter differed as to how things should be carried on in the future. Both those who believed in the present system and those who advocated State Control were definitely against prohibition. Of course it was well known ti at a large proportion of the prohibition vote in past years was made up of tho.se who did not believe in prohibition but could not support the existing system. The Prohibition Party were now out to disfranchise the genuine temperance voter by taking away th(f third issue and force him to vote against his convictions. (Applause.) I r the people—"lf—” called an interjector. Mr Armstrong: Yes, another if. ladies and gentlemen! If these people dit 1 not have such empty heads you would not hear so much reverberation in the hall. (Applause.) AV© ask all , moderate people to vote for the State control issue, because it serves as an indication that something el.se is wanted in this country besides the prohibition and continuance issues. (Applause.) If prohibition were carried the hotels would go out of business—- “ Hear, hear,” from a few. Mr Armstrong: Ladies and gentlemen. we have at least seven prohibitionists present. (Laughter and applause and cries of “ Shut up ” to a prohibition interjector.) STATE CONTROL VOTES NOT WASTED. The third issue gave electors the opportunity to indicate clearly that reform of the trade was necessary. Such a mandate would certainly result in the licensing laws being put in a far Defter position than ever before. (Applause.) He wished to make it clear that the State Control votes were not in any circumstances ** wasted votes,’ as stated by the prohibitionists. Every vote for State Control counted definitely against prohibition; but it also showed that the elector was not satisfied with existing conditions. Another point that electors should jje quite clear on was that if prohibition was carried, it meant that no one would be permitted in any circumstances to make home-made beverages of any kind containing alcohol. The natural process of fermentation of home-made drinks would become illegal. This was the declared opinion of Mr C. P. Skerrett, K. 0., Mr P. .7. O’Regan, and Mr A. Gray, K.C., three of the most eminent legal authorities of New Zealand. (Applause.) Another important point was that if prohibition were carried at the ap proaching poll, it would be final, and for alt time. Section 64 of the’Licensing Amendment Act, 1918, made tnia quite clear. A voice: You will never get it back. Another voice: It will never be I carried. tt was regrettable to find that pro ! hibitionists were endeavouring to deceive the electors in this matter. It was useless for any one to suggest that the right to rote could be got back through the Legislature. (Hear, hear.; Our legislators were frightened enough now- of the bogey of the prohibition

“block vote," and if prohibition were once carried, we would have “ Bueivley's chance” of getting Parliament to re-submit the question to the people. Tho Prohibition Party would throw a?t tho weight of its organisation, against any suggestion of re-submission. The suggestion therefore made by them that people should “ give it a trial ” could be given no other name than a “ Prohibition trap.'" He did not think the people would allow them-, selves to he caught. REVENUE MUST BE REPLACED. 1! prohibition were carried this Wv.ek then all revenues and license fees from the importation, manufacture, and sale <m alcoholic liquors would automatically cease on the thirtieth of June next. It was useless for the Prohibition Party to try to disguise the importance of this matter. The Prime Minister had stated that if prohibition were carried he would have to call Parliament together at once to adjust tlie financial position. The amount involved was well over two million pounds per annum. The League had made an estimate based on the average yearly consumption for the ten years 1911 to 1920, worked out at the present rates oF duty. This was the om» reliable tost of the amount derivable. Now this amount of over two million pounds would have to be made up by taxation in some other direction. The Taxation Commission had reported that no more could be raised from land tax and income tax; Parliament therefor* would be compelled to place the taxation on the necessaries of life. The Piohibition Party were quoting Air V/. I s . Hunt as an infallible authoriT**. Air Hunt was the gentleman who, as a member of the Efficiency Board recommended the Government in 1918 to prohibit the importation of luxuries such as silk stockings, and in 1919 or. behalf of the Prohibition Party issued a statement that the lost liquor revenue would be made up by taxation on tlie very luxuries he had previously recommended the Government to stop coming into the country. Which Air Hunt would they have? A voice: Don’t want either ! AMERICA. WET AND UNHAPPY. Referring to the United States, Air Armstrong said that the first thing we had to remember was that we were a British community. (Applause.) What might be good for Americans and even necessary for them might be a very ba I thing for New Zealanders. It might be a very harmful thing for New Zealand. A voice: Give it a trial. Air Armstrong: It is not going to have a trial! (Loud applause.) Apart from the prohibition propagandists. all the statements made bathos© who had studied America at firs* hand were to tlie effect that a very bail state of affairs had resulted in that country from the attempted prohibition. America, had turned herself into the. laughing stock of the world. li. was useless for imported prohibition agents to try to disguise the outstanding facts. First. America was not dry . second, social conditions in America iiad not improved: and thirdly, when attempts had been made to secure record of public opinion? they all showed that the people were opposed to enforcement. This had been recognised by no less a person than President Harding, who. referring to the Congressional elections had “ taken cognisance of the “ wet' gains” and said: “ If assured! that the country was not merely undergoing a temporary reac tion and really demands beer and wines lie will endeavour to meet the demand.” Even the prohibition party could not question the bona tides of tliat statement, coming as it did from tlie mm they hod been lauding; as the champion of prohibition enforcement. Tlie President’s reference to “ wet gains” hardly squared with the cable the prohibi tionists had received from the Rev* Hammond to the effect that tli • “ drys ” bad had a great victory. The prohibitionists should consult another oculist. (Laughter.! THE COMING GENERATIONS. The prohibitionists were now saying, in view of the. failure of the enforcepresent generation they were working for but for tlie young people who wer.> to make the citizens of the next. They claimed that the abolition of the saloon in America had removed the young people from contact with liquor. As ..• matter of fact the very reverse ivahappening. Even ir. America no decern lad or lassie would go prowling into saloons to get liquor; but how wenthey to get away from it when it* was being manufactured in their own homes? Home brewing and distilling had become a national pastime. He. quoted advertisements of numbers or •inns giving particulars of utensils f O,home manufacture, with ingredients, testing jars, hydro-meters, etc. One pamphlet entitled "The Joy of Making j Your Own " caused particular amuse , inent. The prohibitionists were now stating ! that the habits of tlie present generation could not be changed. They were in full flight out of tins generation into the next. (Laughter). DRINK IN AMERICAN COLLEGES. Air Armstrong said the “ Vanguard,” the official organ of the New Zeaand Alliance, had quoted replies to a questionnaire sent by an American temperance society to various colleges in the States. The question apparently was whether prohibition had increased, drinking among the students. (Laughter). Rather a remarkable question if prohibition was as effective as its supporters claimed. (Laughter). The replies however were more remarkable, for they showed that while some colleges recorded a decrease. 133 out of 480 interrogated. 111 could only he reported as saying “emphatically that there had been no increase”— (laughter) —and 13 “either reported or implied an increase in the consumption of liquor since the passage of the amendment.” Surely this was a wonderful tiling to find in the official organ of the prohibition party of New Zealand. Only a few days ago a cable message had appeared in the Press reporting : appalling scenes of drunkenness among ' students at. the Naval and Military col- ! leges football match at Philadelphia. ; lortunately, in this country, liquor was absolutely unknown in any of our colleges, and tho article in the “ Vanguard ' would help us to understand "h.Y some Americans might need prohibition. We did not want it in New Zealand. PROHIBITION AND TYRA NXY. Air Armstrong proceeded with the aid. of paper and charcoal to paraphru.se j a number of prohibition cartoons, i There was a more serious aspect to • this matter than merely the immediate j prospect of prohibition. The spirit be- j hind the prohibition movement—and j he .was speaking of the typical prohi- i bition leader, not tlie great bulk of I people who voted for prohibition in a j mistaken sense that they , were sup- I porting temperance—was the same old j spirit, of intolerance that in ages past ; had turned the thumb-screw and | stretched the rack. (Applause), There j was not the slightest doubt that it pro- j hi bition were once carried these people j would concentrate on the abolition < • many other liberties of the people. (Ap- ; plause.) When wc came to trace the probe tion movement to its source we fount t that it had its _ origin in f the aetivitit s instance, the peculiar i>po of, old . that, having exhausted itself m its uvva

youtli looked with envy and niahVe upon those who were still enjoying too good things of life. This type was aptly summed up in a verse he had read re cently:— “ King Solomon and King David led merry, merry lives— With many, many servitors and many. many wives; . A: But when old age grew o'er them, with many, many qualms. King Solomon wrote the proverbs and David wrote the psalms.” Then there was the Church-roan type that thought ir saw in prohibition movement a means of gaining political power. (Rear. hear). ifi© desire to control the lives of others was inherent ir. a large proportion of humanity. The training of ministers of religion rendered them peculiarly liable to he infected with this microbe History had shown the entry of religion into politics to 1m? a very thing for the State, ft was regrettable to have to record the fact: but it would appear that large numbers of the ministers of religion in this country were abandoning the Christian principle o? moral suasion and turning instead to* the legislature and coercion. THE INDUSTRIAL TYRANT I hen there was the industrial type which had as its slogan the magic word " efficiency. The people of America had never had a vote on the question of national prohibition. It had been put across " by tho Legislatures largely at the instigation of industrial magnates, who thought that, they would be able to squeeze a little more work •at of their employees. One Judge. E. H. Gary, freely quoted by the New Zealand Alliance as being in favour of prohibition, was shown to be also in favour ol the “twelve-hour working day and seven-day working week.” Air Henry Ford had issued an edict which was given in the “ Literary Digest ” as fob his job. without any excuse or .appeal being considered, to have the odour of beer, wine or liquor on his breath, or to have any of these intoxicants on hi* person or in his home.*' This indicated tlie sort ot tyranny that could be created under prohibition. Henry Ford s control of his workers, body and soul, did not begin and end at- the factol*?' gate, but entered their very homes America, in its hysteria and hypocrisy, was the laughing-stock of the world. Atr Armstrong drew- a cartoon after one appearing in the “ Daily Express.” depicting Uncle Sam. well decorated with bottle**, toasting John Bull across ill water: “Here’s to you as wet as vo.i are. Here’s to me as drv as I am. Bit as dry as T am. and as wet as you nv. )‘m as wet as yon are as dry a- I am." (Applause.) BE BRITISH ! ” This is nor. merely a question oi trade or no trade, hotels or no hotels,” said Air Armstrong in conclusion. What the people had to realise was that there was a great principle at stake The question we had to face on Thursday next was whether or not we were going to plunge this happy Dominion into a tyrannous and inquisitorial svtern —while an underworld of crime and degradation battened upon the appe tites of mankind, and fostered a cancer at the heart of the State. We had by our votes to decide whether we would follow the proved blunder of hysterical America or the lead of solid old Great. Britain, our own Alother Country—(ap plause).who had trained her sons, gen oration after generation, not to run away from difficulties and dangers, but to face them and overcome them. (Applause.) By the spirit of independence thus inculcated, and by the exercise o' that precious heritage, British personal liberty, the Empire had been built.Air Armstrong made a final appeal to tho people to strengthen the hands rf the League, and impress the Govern inent of the country with the need for reformed licensing laws, by voting for State Control on Thursday. The League was pledged to carry out its programme, and for the first time in the history of New Zealand it was evi dent that tho licensing question wa--; going to be seriously and competently grappled with by the Government. Air Armstrong sat down amid a storm of applause and cheering, and a vote of thanks to him was followed by the singing of “ For He’s a Jolly Good Fellow." (Published by arrangement.)