PROHIBITION PRINCIPLES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19444, 2 November 1925, Page 6

PROHIBITION PRINCIPLES

THE LICENSING POLL REV. JOHN PATERSON SPEAKS. “CORPORATE CONTROL” D"SCUSSED. At His Majesty’s Theatre last night a most enthusiastic meeting was held under the auspices of the New Zealand Alliance. The building was packed, and the audience showed their appreciation of the address delivered by the Rev. 1 John Paterson, who was frequently ap-, plauded. At the close he was accorded ' a vote of thanks with most hearty ae- ] clamation. Mr Paterson spoke as follows: j I want to say first of all that I deem* it an honour to be asked by the local) executive of the New Zealand Alliance i to address this fine indoors rally of our prohibition forces, and 1 hope this gr?atl indoors gathering is an indication of ] the result of the voting on Wednesday ■ on the liquor question. (Applause). We' have been putting in a great deal of I work during the last few weeks, and 1’ do not believe there is any electorate that has been better worked than he Wanganui district. In all of the sur-1 rounding districts we have beer h 'ng excellent and well attended meetings

and we can look forward very hope- i fully to the result on Wednesday. I Before I come to the main subject of my address I have been asked by 'he executive to make a statement as regards the official attitude of the N.Z. Al Win co to the political candidates. In the past when we had to light for the right to have a referendum on the ques-' tion, the Alliance showed and nomin.it-! cd its own candidates. This year, how- 1 ever, it has sent a set of questions to the various candidates, and the answers have been published in the local newspapers. The Alliance leaves it entirely to your judgment to be influenced as much or as little as you see fit by the answers given. 1 have been asked to! make that statement in view of the’ questions that have been asked, and the <! .■■•isiuns that have been given. That is the po.-ition. All we did this year as to ask those questions and to publish the answers, and to leave :t to your-i selves, but we have not nominated any-1 body in any electorate as the Alliance candidate. 1 want to say this; I sincerely hope that when you vote u he] liquor question, you will vote on] that question purely on its merits* (Loud applause). It does not matter' what you think of me or anyone else. I It is simply a question of what you] think of the liquor traffic. 1 hope that ' no prohibitionist will be so paltry mind-] ed us to refuse to cast his yote because! of something said or done by some per-j .son who is also a prohibitionist. The) prohibition question is, it has to be re-| membered, quite apart from politics, i I want also to call to your attention! something that has happened in this city in this liquor light only last week.] On the trams of this city there was placed a placard by the continuance; parly and its agents. It purported that if you did not strike out the two bot-

tom lines your vote would be invalid. Now that is a deliberate effort t< '•mislead the public, and, in addition to that, it is a corrupt political practice, it i ought, however, to give us an indication of the morality behind a lot more ui the advertising of the liquor party. Of course, as soon as their attention was called forcibly to the matter they removed it, but we had photographs taken of the placard, and those photographs might be used in any forthcoming Police Court proceeding. It is a rrupt political practice of the worst sort, an J the party who would deliberately attempt by lying information to mislead the public, is a party that stands pilloried and is entirely without c edenec. There is a clear proof that the liquor traffic in this country is deliberately attempting to corrupt the political purity of the city. If for no other reason, it is time every person who values one of the essentials of national life, and the election campaign principle of purity, should say the liquor traffic must be put out of the country as a menace to the national life of the community. I have also been asked to deal with the State control issue and the Licensing Reform Association. The latter is having its last “flutter” in the Opera House at the present moment, and I have been informed that they have aßout one hundred people in the Opera House. I desire to lay the princip'es of prohibition before you so that you may go out between now and Wednesday, and, by legitimate means, try and influence someone who has not made up his mind to vote for prohibition. You have all heard of the oIJ device of drawing a red herring across the track. I have been asked to deal soundly with the latest red hcrrii g of the liquor gang—corporate control. Last election it was “State control,” with a hope no doubt to capture the vote of the Labour Party. But as there was nothing doing in that direction this year they have trotted out a new baby—“ Corporate Control.” There was much talk last election of the noble efforts the Moderate League were to put forth to reform the Trade, but nothing more was heard of them when the election was over. They served their purpose as an election dodge, and doubtless no funds from the Liquor Trade were forthcoming to finance any further activities. Now within a few months of the poll they are conveniently resurrected, a new policy invented, and the old yarn sprung on us of all they mean to do. A couple of Auckland clergymen have been used as the monkeys to pull the chestnuts out of the fire, and this evening in Wanganui we have an ex-editor of “Truth” giving the scheme his benediction. Now first of all, what is this scheme of corporate control? All the wholesale licensed interests and the ownership of licensed premises is to be turned into one corporation. Well, the brewery merger scheme now in operation has practically done that already. The

liquor traffic of New Zealand is already under a system of corporate control. But I want you to notice what follows: this new-fangled corporation is i to be absolutely under the control of a Board of nine, four directly appointed by the shareholders of the corporation, that is, the Liquor Trade itself, and five by the Government; but here I is the little joke—these five arc to be “practical and experienced men,” that is, if the adjectives have any significance, five more men experienced in the practical running of the Trade—five more liquor men. The whole Board ;will 3 c liquor Board—and note the poii -*ar~ to be no more licensjing ssszitiocs; this Liquor Board jis save “the sdte for tho

issue and continuance of permits to sell alcoholic liquors.” Here, then, is the wonderful reform—there is to be no longer any popular control. The liquor traffic is to be one huge monopoly, run by a Liquor Board, under no control of the people. Oh, but you say I am forgetting the fact that the Board is not to keep more than ten per cent, profits; all else will go to charity. Now are you simple enough to think that means anything? Reiaember the shareholders will largely be employees of the corporation, and what is to prevent the Board raising the salaries of all concerned to any figure, and making all sorts of soft jobs for other shareholders at good screws, so raising the working expenses on which ten per cent, would be calculated as profits? The greater the , working expenses, tho bigger the swag of profit allowable. Anyone cogi nisant of the methods of corporations . theoretically limited to a certain peri ccntagc of profit—knows how unworkI able is the enforcement of such a con- | dition. and how easily it can be a id is i always circumvented. The whole I scheme is a brewery shareholders’ | scheme—as barefaced an effort to work “a big steal” as has ever been per- ! petrated, and there is not in it one . real serious suggestion of solving the .liquor problem. For the liquor problem I does not lie in the methods of sale, j or the ownership of the hotels, or the ’method of disposing of the profits; it lies in the alcohol which is in the i liquor. The problem is alcohol —the drug alcohol, which is to many oer ' sons an insidious and deadly enemy to health, intelligence and morals. Let us face the plain fact—--alcohol is a drug—and there is no more sense in encouraging or allowing its common use than there would be starting licensed opium dens and cocaine parlours. Prohibition is simply putting the drug alcohol in the same place as we have put all other drugs—on the chemists’ shelf, only to be used when medicin-

ally necessary. I am not going to deal with the silliness of this scheme of imaginary reform in detail. I want to show you now the insincerity of those backing it up —T do not mean all, for a few wellmeaning folk with very amateurish ideas on the liquor question, may be honest in their belief of its value. But the backing from the Liquor Trade is manifestly insincere. If the brewery bosses and shareholders of New Zealand wanted to introduce reforms, they could do so to-morrow. Their only concern is to put over as much of their stuff on the public as they can and make as big profits as they know how. Further, I want you to be quite clear that this scheme has not tho backing of the Anglican Church. “It is merely a private venture,” as Archdeacon Chatterton said before the Parliamentary Committee, “of a few men in the Anglican Church”—to be exact of four men—tho Revs. Percy Williams, Percival James, Gordon Bell, and Mr Norman Burton. You will observe that two of them are “Percies” and ore a Burton —a name closely connected with browing. But tho scheme has been repudiated by General Synod, the Diocesan Synods, and most emphatically by the present Primate, Archbishop Averill, and the recent Primate, Archbishop Julius. Whose backing has it? Well, it is backed by the Dominion Executive of the Associated Clubs of New Zealand—but with what sincerity? In a letter from Mr C. P. Skerrett, president of the / soeiated Clubs, issued to all the clubs concerned, occurs this charming admission—asking club members to vote for the middle issue, he naively writes: “The executive desires to point out to you that the figures recorded at the last two polls made it evident that the middle issue will not be carried in its present form. Every vote for State Purchase and Control counts definitely against prohibition. Club members need have, therefore, no hesitation in voting for that issue.” Did you ever hear choicer humbug or a clearer admission that voting State Control is really voting Continuance? But of course it sounds more respectable, and soothes uneasy consciences. Look, men and women, be honest with yourself. If you want continuance, vote Continuance, but do not try to humbug God, man and your own conscience by voting for State Control, which you know is a dead and damned issue already. The whole business is a bit of bluff to keep the Liquor Traffic as it is. It is not an honest effort at reform, only an ’ndirect means to defeat Prohibition. What the Licensing Reform Association is out for is to scotch Prohibition and nothing else. The proof of that is clear. I have here three reports of the speeches of three leaders of this wondrous Association—Rev. Gordon Bell, Mr Burke, and Mr Robert Hogg. Each one of them is a tirade against Prohibition, with a little bit of tag at the end about their i w scheme—not a bit, from beginning to end, at the present Liquor Trade. Their slogan on their printed manifesto is “Save your country from the disaster of Prohibition.”

I have not time, nor is it my purpose to-night to answer in detail their criticisms of Prohibition in America. I want simply to say a few general things on Prohibition in the United States. The first is that five years is not an adequate period over which to test a great social reform. Honest thinkers allow time for the test. It will take a generation to try out Prohibition fully in any country. We have had Continuance for centuries. Why not give Prohibition at least a fair go for 25 years? If these critics were honest, they would be willing to do so. Also it is no argument that a reform is bad because a certain section of the community arc doing all they can to

render it ineffective. No sane man would argue so in the case of the Union of England and Scotland, which was hated for a generation or more by crowds on both sides of the border, but yet which has proved itself one of the best things ever done by the people of

Great Britain. No one surely to-day will say that the emancipation of tho negroes of America from slavery was not right, though it cost a tragic Civil War and still involves America in grave economic and social difficulties. But Prohibition is proving a success. First it is prohibiting, and here is the proof. The “Sunday Times” of Glasgow announces that the whisky distillers of Scotland have decided to curtail the output of whisky by 25 per cent, and says that “there is open talk of distilleries having to close down for two or throe years” because of the surplus stocks now on hand. “Why,” as Artemus Ward used to ask, “is this thusness?” Here is the reason from the distillers’ own report: “We must not forget that the consumption is less than one half of what it was. before the war, and at the same fime it is practically impossible to get whisky into the U.S.A.” Second, it is convincing the Yankees more and more that it is a good thing. They live under it and know. Everyone admits that Prohibition has come to stay. No j political party can be found to make

(repeal of the ’’"olstead Amendment a : plank in their platform, and each Con- | gross grows drier and drier. Surely that is proof enough to any commonsense person that all these yarns about the horrible results of Prohibition in U.S.A, simply cannot be true. What is the real reason why you arc asked to vote “ State Control”? In order to carry ‘ ‘Continuance. ” And what is the argument for “Continuance”? I mean the real argument. Well, the first is, the liquor crowd want to continue making easy money at th.e nation’s expense. The second is that a lot of people have foolishly de--vol oped a craving for the drug alcohol, and, like all other victims of an unnatural craving, they want to satisfy that craving at any cost, and the third, well, the third is the noblest and most convincing of all. It is contained in a letter sent out to all members of the Cosmopolitan Chib, signed.by Mr I). Wilson, president, and Mr W. Hall, secretary. Here it is: “In the event of the club losing its charter as the result of National Prohibition being carried, the library and the privileges appertaining thereto would have to be greatly curtailed or its upkeep maintained by larger subscriptions levied on a smaller membership. At present the club admits to the privileges of the library lady residents in Wanganui, at the annual subscription of 10s, and the executive desires to point out to these ladies that, as a consequence of National Prohibition being carried, the club would be unable to afford the privileges at present enjoyed by them. The executive would respectfully suggest to members and lady subscribers to our library that if they value the privileges conferred on them as the result of their association with the club, that the only way they may retain those privileges is bv voting for Continuance of Licenses.’’

Ladies and gentlemen, but ladies especially, just think of it; if you volt Continuance you can read all the novels by Ethel Doll and Charles Garvice you want to for ten bob a year, but if Prohibition is carried, its crowning horror is—that the ladies’ library subscription at the Cosmopolitan Club, Wanganui, may be raised a few bob per annum. Think of the dastardly cruelty of it. Let us all weep!

Men and women, when Continuance advocates have the effrontery to ask voters to settle a serious social problem from such motives, it is time to express in unmistakable terms our unspeakable disgust for the whole business. It is an outstanding example of the degradation of intellect and the stultification of moral sen. j exhibited by supporters of the Liquor Trade. It is but. a cleat expression of the crass selfishness behind the plea to vote for Continuance and its little sister, State Control. For the sake of your country’s economic, social and moral welfare. help us to get rid of the Liquor Traffic thia week.

(Published by Arrangement.)