THE PROHIBITION CONVENTION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 300, 23 April 1896, Page 12

THE PROHIBITION CONVENTION.

As indicated in the concluding lines of our article of last week, we propose to deal on the present occasion with a few of the salient points adduced by the leading members of the convention, which, as our readers are probably aware, was held at Dunedin during the early part of the present month, reports of which are to be found in the Otago Daily Times and the Evening Star, published in that city. In carefully reading these reports —which must be accepted as accurate because they have not been contradicted —we find a serious and, in our opinion, unmerited charge made against the whole police force of this colony, who are charged with a gross neglect of duty, and to 4 be working in the interests of the liquor rings of New Zealand. One of the speakers—Mr Andrew Thompson, of Port Chalmers —said : “ The police took their key from the head of the department and shut at least one eye, sometimes two, to patent breaches of the law. And when charges were brought, the publican could easily obtain evidence that the drink was never sold.” We assume, though Mr Thompson does not condescend to explain who it is, that the key was taken from the Premier of this Colony, who, up to a short time ago, was head of the Department. If so, the only construction to be placed on his assertion is that the Premier instructed the whole police force of the colony to strive to bring about no conviction against the publicans when charged with a breach of the law, even though that violation was, as Mr Thompson states, a “patent” breach of the Licensing Act. We think it safe to say that no reasonable person in New Zealand will suppose for one moment that the astute Premier would in any degree commit himself in the direction of placing his reputation in the hands of any member of the police force as insinuated. And taking a low estimate of the situation, the danger would be altogether too great for either the Premier or any subordinate head of the department to take. And for this reason. Members of the police force are frequently removed, or suspended, foralleged charges of various kinds, and smarting under real or imaginary grievances, would in some cases say that they acted under practical instructions to bring about the defeat of the ends of justice in connection with the liquor traffic. We know that a number of police officers have been removed from thepolice force during the time the present Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act has been in force. And does it not appear a strange commentary, significant in its very nature, that nearly the whole of those dismissals have been made on account of charges in relation to the liquor traffic, or for a personal violation of the law on behalf of the officers themselves. We have no hesitation in saying that either through a want of reliable information, or from an excess of zeal which outran all discretion, Mr Thompson has cast a most unmerited slander upon the head of the department, and in the same connection, upon the whole police force of this colony, which obtains no adequate or substantial qualification from his compliment paid to the police force of his particular locality (Port Chalmers). A careful enquiry from persons well qualified to judge, and a perusal of the official records of the police in the various Australasian colonies, satisfies us that for integrity and a faithful adherence to

duty, the police force of New Zealand compare favourably with that of any colony under the canopy which carries the Southern Cross, and we shall be surprised if some parhamer.tary enquiry is not asked for re the convention, which obtain their significance from the fact that they were made by a respectable citizen, at a duly organised meeting of an influential section of the community. We pass over for the present the resolution passed to obtain the services of two persons for every electorate, for the purpose of placing every person on the roll favourable to prohibition, in order to accurately gauge the strength of the party in each place ; though on a future occasion we shall show that this proposal, if given effect to, is a direct violation of the principles of the ballot-box, principles which the prohibition party have theoretically declared should be held sacred and inviolate, and which they have emphatically charged those engaged in the liquor trade with shamefully disregarding For the present we shall only touch upon one more matter declared at the convention, viz., that those engaged in the trade had their spies out in- everv direction. This is really “ lovely,” as coming from those who were regularly mixed up with and supported what was done in Sydenham and in Christchurch a short time ago. In the former place a number of young men were sent out from a church at the close of a Sabbath evening service and, according to the uncontradicted reports, were instructed to go to certain hotels and obtain drinks under the declaration that they were bona fide travellers. This, we understand, they succeeded in doing, and subsequently reported their success to one of lhe highest officials of the church, who in turn, a few days after, visited the stipendiary magistrate (who, according to Hansard report, was sick at the time), stated the case, and expressed the hope that he would be sufficiently well to sit on the case when it came up for hearing, as he (the official) had no faith in the J.P.’s of the place. It is further stated that the S.M, regretted his own illness, but mainly because he was not well enough to kick this chief of the spies out of his apartment. Then take another spy, who was subsequently tried for perjury. He was stationed in a window to watch the back entrance of one of the first-class houses in Christchurch ; and in connection with his case he did obtain a yerdict, but his evidence was so “ shaky ” that he was subsequently committed for trial for perjury. Verily, this convention was well qualified to deal with the question of spies.