STATE CONTROL

Wanganui Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15341, 2 October 1917, Page 2

STATE CONTROL

TO THIS EDITOR.. Sir, —Your article in Saturday evening’s issue on the above subject is very interesting, as is also a pamphlet that is being circulated throughout the Dominion by the Rev. (note the title!) James Milne, M.A., containing the report of a speech made in England early this year by the Et. Hon, Sir Thomas Whittaker, M.P. Sir Thomas, like yourself, advocates State control as a means to an end, and I must admit candidly there is a lot in the arguments p it, forth, but, I maintain, not everything. But without wishing to be unfair to you..or to Sir Thomas, and Avithout wishing to interfere Avith the edntext, let me give a few extracts from the ,aforesaid pamphlet. They read: “Drink is the greatest cause of inefficiency, waste, and Ices of time, etc. Its production and sale waste food, coal and labour, and occupy ships, docks and railways which are badly needed for A'itally , important purposes. It is futile cant to prate about economy Avhile people , Miander £180,000,000 a year on drink (it is about £5,000,000 in little New Zealand, is it not?), and it is selfish injustice to ask people to eat and travel less so long as wo allow food to be destroyed to produce alcoholic liquor, and our transport service to be blocked by it and for it.” All this applies to New Zealand, does it not?” Sir Thomas quoted Lord Rosebery as having declared that ' “If the nation did nop throttle the liquor traffic, the Uouor traffic Avould throttle the nation.” He then goes on to explain in a clear and lucid manner how the State could buy out the traffic, showing excellent reasons, among Avhich he cites the present “political” influence over Parliament and candidates at Parliamentary, and even municipal, elections at Horae. The same obnoxious influence prevails in Neiv Zealand at Parliamentary and also at Licensing Committee elections, and the writer is quite satisfied that some candidates are “bought,” and their expenses paid, in the interests of the liquor traffic. Unfortunately the Prohibitionists as a body (not individually, of course) have not in the past treated their men Avell, the writer knoAA’ing this latter from personal experience as an Independent Labour Prohibitionist at the last general election. -Still, when a man or a woman has the cause of humanity truly at heart, he or she does not become downhearted, but still fights on towards the emancipation of our race. But this is’ only by the Avay. The real question is: Would State OAvnei'ship of the liquor traffic prevent the Avretchedness in homes where liquor takes control? Would beer or spirits sold by State officials enable a worker (or any other person, for that matter") to think more clearly than beer sold by a publican, as at present? I am po “wowser,” not a sentimental one at any rate, but I claim that there is only on thing worth giving a trial, namely, total national prohibition, and if after a fair trial the electors are not satisfied that prohibition is a. good thing, then, as one who believes in the “government of the people by the people and for the people” by means of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, I say it should rest with the electors to decide for themselves by means of the referendum and bare majority. Bub whatever avg do we must not allow ourselves to be misled by “red herrings drawn across the scent.”—l am, etc., * HUMANITY.