The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1909. NO LIOENSE NO LIQUOR.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXIV, Issue 12757, 30 April 1909, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] FRIDAY, APRIL 30, 1909. NO LIOENSE NO LIQUOR.

Oub readers will recall the animated discussions which took place in -New Zealand four or five years ago, on the platform, iv the pulpit, in the columns of the Press, and in Parliament, on the now notorious Clause 9 of the Licensing Bill introduced by the late Mr Seddon. The clause provided that where No-license was carried, it should not be lawful, except under certain conditions, for any person in the district to have liquor in his possession one month from the date when the determination came into force. This clause was strongly opposed by the No-license party, who claimed that its existence would make it almost impossible in any electorate to carry no-license, and it failed to find a place in the Licensing Bill which was subsequently placed on the Statute Book. A similar question is now being discussed in New South Wales, where it is likely to become a burning one, and a great fMit seems imminent in the not distant future. Flushed with the success achieved , at the last local option poll, the Temperance party in that State propose to •-•k Parliament to pass an Act for the establishment of local option. The United Licensed Victuallers' Association of New South Wales are by no means alarmed at the intentions of the Temperance party, and at a recent meeting of the Association the president threw out a clear-cut challenge. He said the liquor party was perfectly willing to go before the people on a clear-cut issue. He claimed that at the last poll many thousands of voters voted "no-license" under a misapprehension, and his challenge was prohibition pure and simple, or continuation of license. "If the people of New South Wales did not want liquor," said he, "let them say so at the ballot box ; t if they did not want well-conducted hotels, let them say so" — a sentiment which found favour amongst the members of the Association. The challenge w,as put before Canon lioyce, president of the New South Wales Alliance, who has taken up a very different attitude over the question to that adopted by the Prohibition party in New Zealand. The New Zealand Alliance suggested certain prohibitory clauses in a Bill introduced prior to 1903, which the Legislative Council threw out. These clauses provided that if no-license was carried throughout the Dominion, there should be no alcohol brewed or distilled in or introduced or imported into New Zealand. It came as a surprise, therefore, to many, when Clause 9 was introduced in the 1903 Bill, to find that the prohibitionists objected to fighting on the issue "No License No Liquor." Be that as it may, the Temperance and No-license parties of New South Wales are apparently not afraid to contest the issue which was rejected by the New Zealand No-license advocates. In reply to the challenge issued by the New South Wales Licensed Victuallers' Association, Canon Boyce said he thought it would be readily accepted by the Alliance, provided it be under State option. The country, then, would be one electorate. He felt confident that if the temperance party did not suceeded in carrying nolicense or prohibition for the whole State in the first poll, he was confident that it would be done at no very distant date. Canon Boyce pointed out that the Premier had promised the Alliance that the question of including State option would be considered whenever any amendment of the Liquor Act was intended. The president of the Alliance did not consider it would be wise to exclude at present reduction from the local option issues of the existing law, for reduction might be carried where no-license was lost, and thus a step forward might be secured. He instanced the poll in 1907, by which about 347 licenses ceased, and which he thought showed a substantial advantage in the public interest. The secretary of, the Prohibition party in New South Wales, Mr G. D. Clark, differs .from Canon Boyce, and favours the elimination of the reduction issue. He asserts that the local option^method, with the complication of a reduction clause, always adds to the difficulties of the position, and goes on to say: "The idea of closing one hotel in a given

place, while leaving another to do doiiblc the trade, never inspires enthusiasm, and experience has always proved that it i.s easier to get an emphatic vote on an issue which involves the existence of the entire business than it is- on a small question, which only affects a particular locality. In addition to that, existing methods make it practically impossible to touch the liquor traffic in the large centres of population, where the publichouses are so numerous. Under a State vote the surplus prohibition majority of the scattered centres would help to make up for the deficiency in the cities and large town, and in every way it would be more satisfactory. "i Mr Clark is very pleased to see the challenge thrown out and as promptly taken up, and he is certain the Prohibition party and the Good Templars will be ready to fall into line and back up the Alliance. He believes that with a clear-cut issue of prohibition or continuance, the result will operate fairly, as it will place all liquorsellers on an equal footing. The latest Australian files to hand do not state whether the Premier has again been approached with a view of getting the question decided on the issue of State option, but as both parties seem agreed there should be no difficulty in having the matter settled as suggested. The fight will be watched by New Zealand with grsat interest.