THE FARMERS AND PROHIBITION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 703, 27 August 1903, Page 20

THE FARMERS AND PROHIBITION.

DEPUTATION TO THE PREMIER.

A large deputation, representing the hop and barley growers of the provincial districts of Marlborough and Nelson, waited on the Premier, on Thursday last, to place before him certain disadvantages) that would, they considered, be cast upon them by prohibition. It was pointed out that of the average annual crop of a million bushels of barley over one-third came from these two provinces. The crop in Marlborough last year was valued at £45,000. Landed property to the vahie of three-quarters of a million sterling was under cultivation in these provinces.. At Motuelqg.c there were 800 acres in hops last year, '«&- £52,000 in hard cash was paid to Nine thousand pounds per aiinnwU eame into the district for malt. If the^e,’industries! were taken away great loss" and hardship would be caused, if ThS Premier admitted that if prohibition, were carried" the effect on barley and hop growers would. be considerable. He '-went on to say that it was his duty to "give effect to the will of the people. If it should be that the majority of the people favoured prohibition, then effect would have to be given to that wish. To bring in legislation with the view of assisting the deputation was a much easier thing to suggest than to do. He almost dreaded the name of the,, Liquor Bill, so gteat , a fight would it cause. It was a more for the people than the Government." Ho believed that the great vote cast at the last poll for no-license was not wholly prohibitionist, but was. made up of people

who voted no-license for reasons not far to seek. There was no doubt the vote was reform, and that the people were dissatis-refoi-m, and that the people were dissatisfied with the regulation of the traffic under existing conditions. There was no doubt that the conduct of people connected with “the trade” had not been what it should be. He could not say that the people were to be blamed for their vote. They had practically said : “ Well, we have tried regulation, anh it is not effective ; vety well, we will meet the trouble in another way.” There should be a change in the law 'for certain breaches of the Act. Owners of hotel licenses and barmen or barmaids should all be made responsible. There would be far fewer breaches. However, it was for the people to decide on the broad question. It was his earnest desire to ascertain the desires or the electors-, and then to give effect to those wishes.