APRIL 10th.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXVI, Issue 17515, 7 March 1919, Page 5

APRIL 10th.

THE ECONOMIC STANDPOINT

CONVINCING FACTS AND

FIGURES

BIG MEETING AT OPERA HOUSE

The interest which is being taken m the Prohibition poll on April 10th was manifested on Wednesday evening when a large audience assembled at the Opera Houstj to hear the Rev. R. S. Gray and Mr W. D. Hunt speak on the subject or Prohibition v. Liquor.

THE EFFICIENCY LEAGUE

Mr. Hunt, who is Dominion President of tho National Efficiency League, was the first speaker. He explained tnat the League consisted of men drawn from all parts of the country and comprised largely men who had not *'n ihe past taken any prominent part in tlfe Prohibition movement. The majority had been moderate drinkers, and a great many had actn^ly opposed Prohibition. They had oome round to advocate Prohibition largely as the result of their experiences since the war began.. Many had been actively engaged in patriotic work, and had had their eyes opened to the curse which the liquor ■irade was to the country and what a serious obstacle it would be to any work they-might undertake for the betterment of the country.

TAXATION,

Mr Hunt then went on to criticise the arguments put forth by Mr. Findlay, President of the Moderate League. Mr Findlay had stated that if the people did not continue to pay five millions a year un drink, the country would groan under a weight of taxation. The on'y way to prosperity, according to Mr. Findlay, was throukh drink. If the argum nt that 5 millions must ob sp-nt annually was sound, would it not l^e better still for the country if 't«n millions were spent on Drink? t:We spend five millions a year on Drink," said Mr. Hunt," and in doing so the Stat© obtains approximately a million a year in revenue. If we dou't spend this five millons » year on Drink it is obvious that the State revenue will lose that million. This add«?d to the interest (approximately £250,000 a year on the four and a half millioaa compensation to be paid to the Trade), meant that there would be debits in the State balance-sheet as a result of Prohibition, to the amount of £1,260,000. Hut, asked Mr. Hunt, what about the credits? If the five millions were not &pent on ljquir. it must b© spisnt or dealt with in some other way—it could not simply drift out of existence. "If there is any way in which that five million can be dealt with so that it will escape taxation or contributing to the revenue I have yet to learn of it." Mr. Hunt, taking a man with a salary of £200 us an example, made

SOME CONVINCING ARGUMENTS

He showed that if the man had been in the habit, of spending £20 per annumon b©2r, it would not be possible for nim to spand it or dispose of it in any way which woald escape taxation. "If a man cannot escape taxation with £20, how can it be done with five millions? But. you way say, there is no evidence to show what this five millions "will produe in the way of revenue. You are wrong there. There is evidence, and we can make a very close estimate of the amount that it will produce. Tho ssouroe of all public revenue is production —not exports—but everything that is produced in the country from iue largest wool-clip to the cabbage tho workman grows in his garden s'from the meat produced on the largest station to the eggs yu<ur hen lays. The annual production of this country is sonny thing like £100,000,000. The £t a te revenue for the Dominion for the year ending M-arqh 31st, 1918, was £15, *612----219. This, on £100,000,000 of production, meant that 15.6 per oent.ot,production went to tho State revenues. That is, but of every £100 produced, £15.12 went to the Start© and £84.8 remained with the people. Now, if this five millions is not spent on Drink, tho State loses the million revenue that comes from Drink; but it is fair to asRttmo that in disposing of that five millions in other directions it will bring the same return to the State as the disposal of the remaining £95,000,000 of production does —that it,, 15.6 per cent. Five millions at 15.8 per cent, equals £780,000. This means that the State has lost a million and has got in ?ts place £780,000. Then there are si number "of items of expenditure in connection w'th our StaAa finances that *u*e caused to a large extent through Drink. The expenditure on these items in 1917 amount d to £1,4~4,4?8. Various estimates hftve been made by experts to show \vhntb proportion of this arises out of Drink, and many of these estimate* run as high as 75 and 80 per cent., bu*. to be on the safe side, call it 55 per cent. Thnfc means £310,935, and if we add this to the £780.000 revenue derived from Ih© five millions, we have total credits amounting: to £1,590,935. which pays the 1£ millions lost and leaves £340,935 to the good. . . But this i 3 only the beginning of the

INCREASED WEALTH

wbioh will n»»orue to the country by Prohibition. What about the increased efficiency brought about by the banishment c.f Drink? I hardly think it is necessary to stross this point. Ask any employer of labour the class of man he would sooner employ—the onr» who r'rinks or tbe one who doesn't. Ask any Labour leader who is the most valuable member of his union—the one who drinks or the one who does not—and the answer will be : " Th,s one who does not" every time. There is just as much room for liquor in business or industry as there is for sand in an engine. . .

A 5 per cent, increase in efficiency on

100 millions of\production means producing another five millions. Five taillions at 15.6 per cent, is £780,000. *>n this basis it means that the State tevenue gains at the very least anything between one million or two' millions in a year, and a grsat deal more if the increased efficiency approaches anything like the American estimate. Conservative estimates in America hod placed the increased efficiency through' tne banishment of Drink at 21 per cent, of ' tha national production. What aJbotit the point of -view of the people tb&inselvea—and this is much the most important point of view. It means that the amount saved in Drink, added to the consequent increased production, will be anything between ten and fifteen millions a year. This, and probably a good deal more, is equal to £10 to, £15 , per head of the population, or £30 to £75 pei- family. (Applause.) Prohibition meaas reduced taxation. It means larger production and larger incomes and earning power for everybody, and tt does not require a genius in finance to see thnit if you increase the amount available -to be taxed you reduce the amount required to produce a given sum

-THE COMPENSATION QUESTION.

In the course of his speech Mr. Hunt said : It has been suggested to you that if you want Prohibition you should vote for Continuance at the poll in April and then vote the Trade out without compensation ut the next General Election. Now I just oak you to consider for a moment who made that suggestion! That suggestion has been made by the leaders of the Moderate League. But the tenders of the' Moderate League want Continuance! Why, then, do they suggest that you should vofca Continuance in April in order to get Prohibition ax the. next ofcetjon.? Because they know that if Continuance is carried at the next poll. Prohibition wit not be carried at the General Election. At the General Election three issues are provided for: Continuance, National Ownership, Prohibition without compensation : but it is one of the conditions that either National Prohioition or Stare Ownership to win mu*t have an absolute majority of the total vot&fl cast. In practice, it means that if n»it of 100 votoa cast, 50 are for Prohibition, 49 for State Ownership, and one toi Continuance, then neither State ownership nor Prohibition have an absolute majority of the votes cast and Continuance wins. . . The Prohibitionists hay« tbe chance of Their lives on April 10th next. If they don't take that opportunity I feel satisfied they will be ii the wilderness for a generation.

REV. R. S. GRAY.

Mr. Hunt dealt with several other aspects of the subject, after which the 'Key. R. S. Gray delivered a characteristically forceful speech. A number oi questions were answered, an<l tlw me*jting. which was a capital one^ disperseo after paying the customary compliments to Hie speaker and Chair.