ACTING – PRIME MINISTER’S VIEWS ON PROHIBITION.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15788, 9 April 1919, Page 5

ACTING - PRIME MINISTER’S VIEWS ON PROHIBITION.

NO ANXIETY ABOUT REVENUE. INCREASE IN PRODUCTION CAN BE EXPECTED. LIQUOR IS' A NATIONAL MENACE PROHIBITION ESSENTIAL FOR NATIONAL EFFICIENCY. (Published by Arrangement.) WELLINGTON, April 2. Following is a copy of a letter from Sir James Allen to his constituents:— The issue to be decided on the 10th of this month is so important that I feel compelled to place before you my views on the liquor question, arrived at after many years of public life, and especially owing to experiences since the war began. I do not write as a member of the Government, but as a citizen who is entitled to give expression to his opinions, in the hope tht good may result. There are two arguments used in favour of the continuance of the liquor traffic:— (1) Loss of Customs revenue. (2) Interference with the liberty of the individual. Interference with liberty appears to be the chief argument used by those in favour of the continuance of the use of intoxicating liquor. There are many who enjoy a glass of wine, and probably more who prize the liberty to do as they like within the bounds of the law. I myself can enjoy a glass of wine, and the liberty which the law allows is dear to me, but I am willing to give up a pleasure and part with a portion of my freedom in order to remove from my fellow man a temptation which he cannot resist and which is a menace to him. The evidence which appeals to me is: (1) The evil effects on those who indulge and the ruination in many cases of family life. I have no anxiety about the revenue. The Customs revenue from alcoholic liquor and beer during the last ten years has averaged £867,696 per annum. For the year 1918 it amounted to £816,828. There are several sources from which to make this good: (a) Customs revenue from dutiable goods imported in larger quantities owing to the expenditure of an additional four or five millions, and probably more, that was previously spent on liquor, being diverted to other channels, (b) Additional revenue from incomes, which- will be greater because of increased incomes due to greater efficiency, and an expenditure of a large sum of money now spent on liquor.

From a personal knowledge of tho coal industry, _ am in position to stato tliat after pay day there is a falling off in production. I am informed that this is true of other industries also, (c) Taxation. The sources of revenue indicated in (a) and (b) will, in my opinion, be ample to meet the loss of Customs revenue from liquor. It is not my purpose to comment on the general evil effects, which are apparent, but there are sad stories which the public do not know of. During tho war it has been my duty to deal with separation allowances to wives, and especially wives living away from their husbands. In many cases drink was the caiise of the break-up of the homes. By way of contrast, I draw a comparison from my own experience. Some years ago certain coal miners moved to a nolicense district to take up farming. When visiting the district a few years later I had a meal at the home of one of these men. Round tho table sat a happy family. The district was somewhat isolated, and I asked the wife if she felt lonely, and whether she did not at times wish to - be back at her old home. Her reply was: ‘'‘There is no Puke here.” “Puke” was the shortened name of the hotel near the coal mine from which the family had moved. It needs little imagination to understand the full meaning of the wife's answer. (2) The menace to some of the returned soldiers, both fit and medically unfit. It is unfair to discriminate between soldier and civilian. The closing of hotel bars when a transport arrives alongside the wharf and six o’clock closing apply to soldier and civilian alike. Will any civilian argue that he is not prepared to put up with these curtailments of his liberty in the interests of soldiers and their kith and liberty of soldier and civilian have not kin? These curtailments of the personal liberty of the soldier and civilian have not in many cases prevented the supply of too much liquor to returned men. No one with eyes to see can deny this. Socalled friends of the soldier have found means to evade the regulations and the Act, the result often being heartrending, Affection and time will, it is hoped, repair the sad hearts, but is there not a clear call to prevent such things in the future, even if it does demand some sacrifice? Necessity ’did, however, demand some discrimination, which has taken the form of regulations to prevent the supply of liquor to troop trains and to the sick and wounded whilst undergoing hospital treatment. Under the present law this discrimination could not be avoided. On 10th April there will be an opportunity to get rid of the discrimination, and to make effective the regulations which were devised to assist the sick and wounded to speedy and more certain recovery.* (3) Immorality and venereal disease. I do not desire to comment on these unsavoury subjects myself. A British Royal Commission’ not long ago reported on venereal disease, and I quote from the final report; “The relation between alcohol and venereal disease.—Abundant evidence was given as to the intimate relation between alcohol and venereal diseases. Alcohol renders a man liable to yield to temptations which he might otherwise resist, and aggravates the disease by diminishing the resistance of the individual, ... “The facts point to the Conclusion that decrease in the use of alcohol will be an important factor in diminishing the prevalence of venereal disease. . . General conclusions (page 65): Our evidence tends to show that the communication of disease is frequently due to indulgence in intoxicants, and there is no doubt that the growth of temperance among the population would help to bring about an amelioration of the very serious conditions which our inquiry has revealed.” (4) National Efficiency.—This aspect of the question has been fully discussed, and nothing further need be added except to ask the questions: “Why have America and Canada become dry?” The answer, it appears to me, must be “For national efficiency.” Can a wet country successfully compete against a dry one. My answer is “No.” No one has suggested to me- that I

should write this letter. It has been sent on my own initiative in the hope that it may be of some service to my constituents, and you are at liberty to use it as you think best.—l am, etc., (Signed) J. ALLEN. This letter giving Sir James Allen’s private views on the liquor question was sent to three gentlemen in the Bruce electorate, who were empowered to make whatever use of it they wished. Sir Janies Allen received a telegram from them on Saturday, stating that it was their unanimous wish that the letter should be given publicity. It has accordingly been handed to the Press for publication.