PROHIBITION CAMPAIGN.

Western Star, 6 September 1918, Page 2

PROHIBITION CAMPAIGN.

ADDRESS BY .MR GEO. BELL, M.P There was a. large audience in More’s Hall on Thursday evening tot hear the address by Mr Geo l . Beil, M.P., for Victoria (British Columbia) in support [of the New Zealand Alliance campaign. In the unavoidable absence of the Mayor- (Dr. Trotter) the Rev. 0. A. Gray, M.A., occupied the . chair, and briefly introduced the speaker Mr Bell on rising was warmly greeted. He thanked the chairman for his kind words and went on to say that since he and his fellow deputies had struck the shores of New Zealand they had simply been overwhelmed with kindness. Everywhere they had been the people seemed) to make them at home the moment they crossed their | door step. He was very much in love , with New; Zealand which showed evidence of comfort and prosperity on every side. In regard to the war Canada, like New Zealand, was simply doing “their bit.” New Zealand had sent 10 per cent, of their population and her boys would bej known aisi long as British history is read. Reference to the war touched a very tender spot in him. They had shed their tears together and he hoped it would not be long before they were joining in celebrating a glorious victory. Before coming to the subject of Ms address he gave his audience a few particulars in regard to the Great North Land which he represented. Coming to the subject of his address he said that since landing in New! Zealand; he could not but observe that Prohibition was in the air. One could not help reading the signs of the times. It was not only that isection wMoh was designated “ Wowsers ” that Was advocating it, i but keen business and professional men who summed up the liquor traffic from our loss of efficiency point of view. If a vote wexie taken he had not the slightest doubt as to what would) happen, especially if they got it on the bare , majority principle. In Canada, said Mr Bell, they felt they had a big and promising country in regard to material things; that one of its best assets was its boy's) and girls; that the liquor traffic Was their greatest enemy to progress; and that anything which struck a vital blow at the lives of the people wafs well worthy ■of their serious consideration. They looked, over the record of this traffic and decided that it must go. That was twenty years ago. After agitation they got local option and a, few places went dry, just as they had in Now Zealand. This was not altogether a success though it reduced the consumption of liquor—always a good thing—and they continued l to ask for total prohibition. Then cairn© the war and after the people saw the effect of pro- ; hibition in the military camps they could stand the traffic in liquor no longer andl set up a demand for prohibition iwSfbh could not be refused. They hadl nine provinces each with its own Parliament and a Dominion Legislature andl the latter had said if they wanted ''Prohibition they could go , ahead. Since that time©-four, years ago—every province had) passed a prohibitory law with the exception of Quebec, but on May 1 next they would have prohibition there too. After April I next it would be illegal to manufacture, to import, or to tarry anywhere in the Dominion liquor for beverage purposes with the exception 1 of liquor for sacramental, and medicinal 1 purposes. In the United States. 1 no soldier had his tot of rum, there was ho liquor in the enlistment camps, nor on the troopships, and partly because c)f that they were able toi send 10,000 men across the Atlantic on each and every day, together with a great many good, ships to supply the Allies in Europe. —(Applause.) They felt that they needed prohibition more on account of home and social conditions than in a financial way. If they lost sight of the moral and social, and even the spiritual aspect of this movement they were losing sight of the greatest thing that was in it.—(Ap-i plans©). They had all seen the evils of drink. They bad all been Mt. In British Columbia., said) Mr Bell, they received 1,000,200 dollars in revenue from the trade and spent 11,000,000 dollars. In the Dominion the same thing occurred. In Canada as a whole the revenue was only 19,000,000 dollars, . and) they spent directly and indirectly 215,000,000 dollars. The very same thing held good) in the United States. The figures there awful. It was a very great drinking country. In the United States 2,500,000,000 dollars were expended in I drink with a population of 100,000,000 people. New record was not far short of this. The speaker then quoted figure® to show the enormous number of people who bald been affected in some way or other as a result. But the time was now. within measurable ’distance when, they would) have total prohibition in the United) States. There were J 8 States there, and) if 36 of these States went for prohibition the other 12- States had! toi have it, whether they liked: it or not. Twelve of the States had so far said “Yes” to the question,. He read a letter from the Acting-Premier c/f the province of Saskatchewan, which carried no-license on the Ist July, 1915, stating that the community would not go back to the system of liquor if it was paid) to do it. The wonder was that the abomination had been tolerated! (so long. In Canada the gaols, lunatic asylums*, and charitable institutions were being depopulated by the abolition, of liquor. He mentioned the remark of aJ medical man who migrated from a. “ dry” area. When asked for the reason the emigrant replied 1 : “ Don’t you know tha t a ‘ dry ’ town is no good for our business?” If New Zealand 1 was going to have State Control they would have to go somewhere else than Canada) or the United States for a precedent. Mr 801 l said he always hesitated to touch

tins point—and that was the dose relationship between the liquor traffic and the social evili They had read about the hospitals.,'in France and Eng*v land, and had probably seen in New Zealand “gome of ; the evil effect on their men. In his country it had been proved beyond contradiction that two out of three young men had gone astray .when under the influence of drink. He would rather-See a boy of his where he was.—buried respectably in a soldier’s grave—than see him the way some of them come back. Twothirds of the evil ,in these case® was the result of the liquor traffic, and anyone who would not hit it was a \raitbr to his country.—(Applause). Commenting on the allegation that “ prohibition kills a town,” he referred to contrasts which he had! observed in America —“dry” places jwith prosperity close to “wet” places with squalor. For example, Missouri, which was “ wet ” had great natural resources, but the wealth per head wa’s only 300 dollars. In the adjoining State of Kansas, which was “ dry,” the average was 1750 dollars per head, and the superiority was maintained in uther directions. In 1907 they .had a great financial depression in the United : States. In Missouri they did not I respond to the request for financial | help—this with all its distilleries,— but Kansas responded with 50,000,000 ! dollars. Wherever prohibition had been tried the result was always the same—good. One of the delegates from Canada on behalf of this great movement wiaisi Mr James Simpson, a prominent Labour Leader, and as they would not likely have the opportunity of hearing him he, on his behalf, would give them the attitude of the labour unions, on this question. In Denver State and in the Province of British Columbia, there had been strong opposition to Prohibition by the Labor party before it came, but they had since come round to the idea that it wajj good now they had experienced it. On the motion of Rev. C. A. Gray, M,.A., a hearty vote of thanks was accorded the speaker.

. The following resolution was also carried, on the motion of Rev. J. Field, seconded by Mr McGregor; “That this meeting heartily approves of the recommendations off the Efficiency Board for the vote, and pledges itself to do its utmost to make, the campaign a success.” The meeting terminated with the singing of the National Anthem.