THE NO-LICENSE QUESTION.

Waipa Post, Volume VII, Issue 336, 31 July 1914, Page 4

THE NO-LICENSE QUESTION.

A fairly large audience assembled at the Town Hall wi. Wednesday evening to listen to a lecture on the no-license question delivered by Mr H. D. Bedford, M.A.,LL.M. The chair was occupied by the Rev. F. W. Clarke, who stated that it w>s the first meeting held in cor. .ection with the campaign. 1 hey were very fortunate in having a man of Mr Bedford’s reputation to address them. They were not there as “ wowsers,” but there to V take a rational view of the qm -s----tion. The extremists, he contended, were not in the . probin'tion ranks, but were to be found, on the opposite side. Ttrv wished to avoid all personalities, and had no quarrel with those engaged in the trade, but they opposed the traffic and the principle of it. They had a duty to perform to see to it that the future generation were given a' fair deal. If they were Britons who believed in giving their children a fair chance, then it was their duty to remove the temptation. Mr Bedford, who was warmly, .4 applauded on rising to speak, said nothing would please him better than to have a sceptical and critical audience. He would like to see every argument he might put forth challenged, and invited those present to ask questions, and to point out where his remarks were wrong. He took it that every man and wdman wanted to hear the truth, and his reason for being there that evening was to help those who sought help. He would make no attempt to score at their expense, and gave a strong and earnest invitation for questions. The speaker referred to the recent deputations that had waited on the Prime Minister in reference to the reduction of the majority on the no-license question.

The deputation from the NoLicense party-showed how the drink traffic contributed to crime, and in other ways was injurious to the well-being of the community. Then followed a deputation of brewers. The * latter said nothing about the effects of the liquor traffic. Their point was that the abolition of the liquor traffic indirectly means throwing a number of people out of employment, and the embarrassing of commerce and financial disaster. The speaker said he was there to attack them on their own ground. Speaking of the financial side of the question he was going to prove that the abolition of the liquor business will promote and will materially add to the wealth of the community. The speaker instanced the case of the farmer who, as the result of a successful season, makes for the material prosperity as he directly or indirectly works. So in the case of drought there is the opposite effect. It would communicate depression throughout the country. There were some 50,000 excessive drinkers throughout the Dominion, and these people contributed to the general depression. The drunkard does not produce as much, and every man is a living form communicating industrial depression. By keeping these men sober one could readily see what the effect would be. The trade says that it makes for industrial prosperity, but you don’t communicate industrial prosperity by making drunkards of men. The speaker dwelt at length on the labour aspect of the question, and quoted /igures to show that in comparison the liquor trade paid less in wages in proportion to the output than a number of trades. Referring to the question as to what would become of the money now being spent per head of the population in drink, the speaker said he anticipated no difficulty in that direction. It would go towards furnishing and in other ways, it would enable a man to have more comfort in his home. Three times as much money as that spent in drink would go in wages, employing three men where now one was employed. The trade had stated that there a large amount of capital invested in the business, and they did not wish their business interfered with. It was, said the speaker, one of the biggest monopolies in the country, which takes much more out of the community than it gives back. The profits of the trade were so large that in two years the profits exceeded the capital invested. They were getting five times more profit than they ought to get. Should such a state of things exist in regard to bread they would have indignation meetings all over the country. He opposed monopolies, and more so in the case of beer.

In regard to revenue, the speaker contended that the brewer or publican did not pay the revenue, except as a brewer. It was the community w T ho pay, and the drinkers at present pay the £900,000. The speaker re- \ ierred to various reforms, all of y which had received opposition from the men who made profits out of them. Invariably the same arguments were used in their

support, when threatened with destruction. .Cases were quoted in which men had devoted part of their lives in bringing about much-needed reforms, although they met with a great deal of opposition. The speaker concluded bv stating that it was for the electors to improve the conditions of life, and at the same time incre'ase their material prosperity, and he exhorted his hearers to “ down with the liquor traffic, and up with material prosperity.” (Applause). The chairman then invited questions, but none was forthcoming.

Dr Reekie, in proposing a hearty vote of thanks to the speaker, referred to the clear and manner in which the lecturei had argued the question that evening. The Rev. D. J. Shaw seconded the proposition, which on being put to the meeting was carried unanimously. Mr Bedford briefly returned thanks.