LIQUOR QUESTION.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXVI, Issue 17477, 23 January 1919, Page 5

LIQUOR QUESTION.

MODERATE LEAGUE'S VIEWS.

There was a fairly large attendance at Everybody's Theatre on Tuesday evening, when Ilessrs D. M. Findlay and R. A. Armstrong, representing the Moderate League, explained the views of the League in regard to the forthcoming licensing poll. Mr. <^. Spriggens (DeputyMayor) occupied the chair, and Messrs John. Driver and T. B. Slipper were also on the stage. Owing to the electric light not being available, the meeting was held under difficulties, candles having to be utilised. MR. FINDLAY'S SPEECH. Mr. Findlay was the t principal speaker. He began by referring to challenges issued by Mr. W. D. Bayley, the Prohibition lecturer, to debate the subject with him, : and stated that that was impossible owing to arrangements for meetings previously made. The speaker expressed keen regret that a discussion of the liquor question had been forced upon the people at this juncture. Whatever the Prohibitionists said, he did not consider it a question of paramount importance to-day. There were other matters which had a much more important bearing upon the destinies of this country at the moment than that of drink. He referred to the coal shortage, shipping problems, repatriation and other subjects, and yet, he continued, the country is embroiled over this wrangle concerning drink. He considered that it was madness to have engineered this referendum in April, and unless we are prepared to bow to the prohibition mandate, we will have to stand up for our rights, and take the field. 4

Referring to the excellent organisation and splendid financing of the prohibition party and Efficiency League, he said their marshals were in the pulpit, and their big guns had been imported from America to fire gas shells. (Laughter).

Mi*. Findlay explained that if prohibition were carried at the poll, the sale, importation and manufacture of alcohol would cease on 30th June. This did not mean merely closing of hotels, but' home-brewed beverages would be prohibited. If the referendum in April declared for prohibition, 4y 2 million would "be paid in compensation. No further vote would be taken and the question would not be again submitted to the people. On the other hand, if it were not carried', a poll would be taken at the next general election, at which the three issues—Continuance, State ownership and prohibition without compensation would be placed upon the people. If the prohibitionists had a majority, which he doubted, by waiting a few months they would carry the poll without paying the 4% million compensation out of the country's money. So far as the putting into operation of the Act, it would mean only one year's delay as the old element of four years to wait had now been eliminated, and instead of closing on 30th June, 1919, if the referendum were' carried, they would close oh 30th June, 1920, if the poll were carried in December. This aspect of the question must appeal to all .reasonable people. He said that people in favour of the referendum being taken did not want a fair statement of the opinions of the country. They wanted a catch vote. Dealing with the estimated loss of revenue which the carrying of prohibition would cause, Mr. Findlay said that the Efficiency 'League's figures were £1,315,000 annually. He stated that in reply to how* this loss was to be made up, there was a strange silence. A large increase in direct taxation would take place to meet the bill. It would mean an expenditure of £3,000,000 on luxuries to get a return of £700,006 in taxation. The Efficiency Board had deprecated Increased expenditure in luxuries — expensive drapery, etc., yet that was what the Efficiency League was actually advocating to meet the ■»deficit. • Many large drapery firms were contributing to the prohibition funds, and it was a matter of monetary interest with them, as it meant increased drapery sales to meet the bill. He combated the argument that prohibition would mean a saving of £1,533,650 owing to reduction in police, industrial schools, mental hospitals, prisons, etc. He also protested against the claim that 60 per cent of the old age pensioners would cease if liquor were abolished. He regarded this as a slight upon the pensioners and hoped they would not forget it. It had been proved that there was just as much poverty and misery in prohibition countries as elsewhere.

In speaking of the direct losses which would follow prohibition, Mr. Findlay emphasised the tourist traffic, which was bound to decrease/ The inclusion-of '6 o'clock closing in the last Licensing Bill was warmlydenounced, it having been engineered by political trickery. After contending that the closing of the hotels during the epidemic was a great mistake which was the cause of some patients dying, Mr. Findlay went on to advocate State Control, which had proved a great success in England. Mr. Findlay concluded by urging the public to postpone prohibition until the soldiers had an opportunity of deciding whether or not it would be good for the country. MR. ARMSTRONG'S SPEECH. Mr. R. A. Armstrong, Dominion secretary of the Moderate League, also * addressed the meeting, devoting himself principally to statistics, with the object of showing that ' in New Zealand the percentage of drunkenness and other offences had been greater in prohibition than in licensed areas. He stated that the vMoedrate League was out to protect