THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XII, Issue 746, 23 June 1904, Page 24

THE LIQUOR QUESTION.

LECTURE BY MR AV. AV. COLLINS. Before a large audience in the Theatre Royal, New Plymouth, last week, Mr W W. Collins, of Christchurch, lectured on ,l What Does No-license Mean ? What the Law Is, and Whv It Should be Amended.”

The chair was occupied by Mr E. M. Smith. M.H.K., who, in introducing the lecturer, stated that he was jjresiding because the ?>iayor (who would ha\ e been pleased to preside) was engaged at a Borough Council meeting. He added that he reserved the right of an open mind. As a Member of I arliament, however, he dee med it his duty to mix in public affairs. Furthrer, he and Mr Collins had been together in politics, had. in fact, rowed in the same boat. Mr Collins had taken the chairat some of his (Mr Smith’s) meetings, and he was pleased to be able to return the compliment. Mr Collins, who was recidved with applause, prefaced his remarks by referring to the cordial reception he had been given in New Plymouth when he spoke here five years ag'o. His reason for asking the public to listen to him again was that they were now far separated from political strife, and the time, therefore, seemed to him to be a proper one to calmly consider an important subject. His previous address was based on facts connected with prohibition in other places ; now they had local experience to guide them. The opinions then held by him had been strengthened and confirmed during the past five years, and throughout that period he had not been idle, but had en deavoured to fortify himself with all the information of a reliable character that it was possible to acquire. He still held that “ no-license ” was an infringement of personal and collective liberty. Herbert Spencer had taken exactly the same view as he (the speaker) did on exactly the same subject. There was now on every bookstall a book that was a classic some years ago —namely, J ohn Stuart Mill’s treatise on ” Liberty,” and which could be got for sixpence a copy. Mill was one with Spencer on the subject of liberty, and therefore he (the speaker) could claim to be in good company. Mill wrote fifty years ago, when Maine was making its new departure in connection with the liquor laws, and therefore his conclusions were apropos. In the papers to-day one could see, daily, references to matters bearing on the liquor question. He had noticed in a local paper that the drink bill in America had gone up by leaps and bounds, and he could not help asking himself the question whether the same thing was not taking place in New Zealand, side by side with the demands for reduction and no-license. No matter what reduction and no-license did, it did not stop drinking ; that was his point. No-license ” was a Yankee invention : it had been a failure in America,_ and we might have profited by the experience of that country. Uhat was the , use of reduction and no-license if it did not reduce drunkenness ? The cry would alwavs be for restriction ; and the more restric-

tion the more demand there -would be for liquor, and the more determined the people would be to resist curtailment of their liberty. In the course of his remarks he would use the term no-li-cense " aad ” prohibition ” interchangeably, because the ” no-license " party did not like being called prohibitionists. They wanted to hide the fact that they were prohibitionists, and therefore called themselves advocates of ” no license.” He had made inquiries iroin those best acquainted with the affairs in “ no-license districts and had been told that there was as much drink in those districts as there was before “ no-license.” Immediately the retail trade was stopped wholesale liquor flowed in. In this respect America had given us an example. The speaker quoted the remarks of a priest (Father Poule) to the effect that there was as much drinking in Kansas (a prohibition State) as ever there was. As liquor packages flowed into Kansas so they flowed into prohibition districts in New Zealand. (A Voice : Mhat about the King Country ?) Yes ; it flowed into the King Country as it flowed into Clutha, Ashljurton and other places. There was no illegality in sending from ” no-license ’ districts wholesale orders or :n fulfilling them ; it was only illegal when a man bought or, sold a small quantity of liquor. Any man in a “ no-license ” community could send out for a -wholesale quantity and be within the law, and this meant that prohibition, or “ no-license,” as operating in New Zealand, was one of those instances of class rule which was intolerable in a democratic country. The wealthy man could stock his ••ellar, but the workingman who wanted a glass for sixpence could not get it without beinganswerable to the law. So long as the desire for drink remained, so long wculd there be demand and supply ; mid if the legal supply were cut off there would be illicit supply. Only the right of the people -was taken away, by vote : the desire. the demand, and the supply still remained. Not a (single district carried “ no-license ” solely by the votes of the people who did not drink, but by the aid of those who could afford to buy wholesale quantities. (A voice : ’‘Rot.”! Mr Collins : “ Your remark is as vulgar as is is ignorant. (Laughter.) Any school boy knew better than that, and anyone who read the reports in the papers would know that the Premier had introduced an amended bill last year, and there was in it a clause which -would have macle it not only illegal to retail liquor, but also prevent its importation. If there was a desire for prohibition that clause would have been passed. But who opposed it ? The temperance party, or rather the “ no-license ” party. They would have none of it, because they

knew if it passed that at the next poll the people who could afford to get liquor would vote against “no-license,’ knowing that if they did not they would not be able to purchase it. If liquor could be imported into “ no-license ” districts in wholesale quantities what would happen ? Some man having a large quantity and knowing that there was a desire and demand, would sell, and become a sly grog-seller —a law-breaker manufactured by circumstances. Then came the spy and the informer, who sneaked into' houses with the object of inducing people to break the law. The speaker instanced cases which had occurred in Ashburton, and quoted the remarks of a judge on the subject of informers. He added that the informer —the sneak, the contemptible cur —was a result of the “ no-license ” system. Every time a man drank under sub rosa conditions he went down socially and morally, and the same remark applied to the illicit seller. The speaker held that respect for one law might mean disrespect for all laws, and when people were forced into such a position it meant political and social demoralisation. “Harper’s Meekly ” had said that one of the results of prohibition was the increase of apothecaries' shops, and instanced a case where in Kansas five hundred gallons of spirits were seized at the drug store of a leading citizen. This proved that the passing of a prohibition law had not prohibited the desire, and the demand, and supply. A Boston paper had said that “ no-li-cense ” was a “ screaming farce,” and it was a screaming farce in New Zealand prohibited areas also. The lecturer quoted reports from Dunedin and other papers in support of his assertions. He asked his listeners to read the statistical work of Messrs Rowntree and Sherwell if they wanted to know how “ no-license worked in America —“ no-license was a grand success when it was jambed up close to a place where liquor could be got. Surely we could have found out how prohibition worked without experimenting for ourselves. Like causes producid like effects and the carrying of prohibition could not alter that natural law. Let prohibitionists be honest ; if they wanted “ no-li-cense ” let it be “ no-license ” pure and simple. He knew that if that principle were acted upon there would not be “ nolicense,” yet the existing state of things was a snare and a deception. Only a few days ago a “no-license convention was held, and a determination arrived at that at next election an effort should be made to capture every seat for prohibition candidates. The political capacity was not to be considered ; all that was to be taken into account was the cause of prohibition. The prohibitionists had been too well considered, and now wanted to ride the country. Mas prohibition the only interest at stake in the colony ? "Was it to be tolerated that the political power in the colony should be captured by this party, whose motives were not, he was beginning to believe, of such an uplifting nature as they would wish people to believe, but were actuated by a desire to gain power. He could, if he so desired, quote authority upon authority to show that what had happened here had its parallel in places where the same iniquitous thing had been imposed on the people. Mr Murray, author of “The Liquor Laws of Kansas,” said there were many who never learned by experience, but who might learn that prohibition everywhere was a failure. The only way to bring about temperance was by moral suasion, not through the medium of politics. Voluntary efforts on behalf of temperance was a thing of the past ; prohibitionists were now trying to bring about moral reform by the machinery of the law. Majority vote in this connection was only another form of force ; nearly all wise legislation was in the direction of conserving the rights and privileges of the individual. The Pharisaical man who was prohibitionist by profession invariably held his head as if he were a superior being- because, forsooth, his appetite did not run in the same direction as that of his neighbour. M 7 hat a prig he (the speaker) would be were he to profess to be superior to his father and mother because his tastes were different. Vet his father and mother were moderates and he was partial to water. If a man was “moderate” he could lay claim to all the merit there was in the world. The man who could not control his language in the cause of prohibition was as intemperate as the man who drank more than he should, and was more blameworthy, because he should know better. Many were led away by appeals to sentiment, and while not undervaluing the sentiment he (the speaker) asked his hearers to keep their sentiment subservient to their reasoning powers and to vote accordingly when the time came to say whether the reins of political power were to be intrusted to the prohibitionists, who had in the past made so many specious promises—luscious fruit which deceived the eye and the taste of which had turned into Dead Sea fruit. Let them clear away obscurities, and endeavour to ascertain what the harvest really was to be —a harvest of

strong men and strong women, or submission to conditions which would only suit weak men. For if the standard was weak instead of strong, it would mean a weak race. Several questions were asked and answered, and the following motion carried, with a couple of dissentient voices : —That in the opinion of this m«-eiing no amendment of the licensing laws of the colony will be unsatisfactory unless it includes clause 9 of the Bill introduced last session. Votes of thanks to the speaker and the chair concluded the meeting. THE WINE INDUSTRY. A new company, with a capital of £20,000, has just been privately floated in Auckland by Mr W. R. Holmes, for the purpose of effecting the amalgamation of several of the local companies engaged in the making of New Zealand wine. The new company completed the purchase last week of the Gardenhurst property, Remuera, belonging to Mr James Mason, where upwards of five acres of grapes are grown under glass. The balance of the land, after reserving the long road frontage for building purposes, is being trenched, and will be planted this season as an open vineyard. Wine cellars are to be erected, and the working of the new company will be centralised as far as possible at Gardenhurst. The businesses amalgamated under this scheme are: The Vineland Wine Company, Whangarei. Glen Var Winery. Gardenhurst Vineries. Zealandia Mine Agency, Fort Street, and others. The amalgamated company, in addition to its own large stock of wine, will have the agency of several vineyards, and thus have command of variety as well as quantity.