The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XIX, Issue 1097, 16 March 1911, Page 20

The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

THE COMIN6 CAMPAIGN.

ISSUES AT STAKETHE MEED FOR CONCERTED AND VIGOROUS ACTION. The series of Trade meetings and conferences that are to be held in Wellington next week are at once fraught with momentous issues, yet full of promise. Their importance is such as to justify, if that were possible, the attendance of every member of the trade in the Dominion; for whatever course of action may be decided upon, there should be a complete endorsement of the proposals that may be carried, and the heartiest of agreement between every section of the trade. The need for action, in view of the 1911 Local Option polls, is obvious. But we may be pardoned for again emphasising the fact, that the issue of those polls, depends very largely upon the attitude of the Trade itself. Hitherto, it cannot be said to have made any serious attempt to place the true position of affairs before the electors. It has made no real fight on behalf of the principles involved. To all intents and purposes Sit has allowed judgment to go by default, and the result is seen in the steadily increasing “No-License” vote, and the continued inroads upon the retail trade, under the operation of the Reduction issue. In 1896, out of 259.898 votes recorded at the Local Option polls, 94,555 were cast in favour of Reduction and 98,312 for No-License, the Continuance votes numbering 139,580. In 1908 —that is twelve years later —with 537,003 persons on the electoral rolls, 421,953 votes were recorded, and, of these, 221,471 (more than half) were cast for “No-License,” 162,562 for Reduction and 188,140 for Continuance. But. as already pointed out, judgment was practically allowed to go by default, no really concerted attempt being made to place the trade view of the momentous issues involved before the public. And the fight itself —if fight it could be called —was of such a spasmodic, and half-hearted character, as to disgust the man in the street, who dearly loves a fight, and who is largely influenced by the vigour with which it is conducted on either side. • ♦ • WHAT THE VOTING SHOWS. While the Continuance vote (as will be seen from the following table) has steadily increased, it has not advanced with anything like the rapidity that has carried the “No-License” vote to such a strong position. The results of the five Local Option polls since 1896 are as follow: —

These figures show that, while the Continuance vote has increased ib!y rather more than 34 per cent., the No-License vote has advanced by 125 per cent. And this result is largely due to the superior organisation and fighting tactics of the “No-License,” or Prohibitionist party, the supporters of which have not hesitated to dip deeply into their pockets in support of their principles. The time, money and effort —more or less voluntary—put into the “No-License” movement is remarkable, and shows a fidelity to principle, or prejudice, that is well worthy of emulation. Even the ‘man in the street, who I “cares for none of these things,” is impressed by it. He sees a band of men and women, united and determined, continually moving forward, pressing every point of vantage, and. stopping short at nothing that can secure the object they have at heart. He may regard them (and probably does), as fanatical in their opinions, misguided in their actions, and mistaken in their ideals. Yet he finds himself, in the absence of any decisive movement on the other’ side, impelled to admiration of their de-

votion to what they conceive to be the claims of duty, and he is more than half persuaded that it is his duty also to vote with the zealots. In that fa,ct, we believe, is found the true explanation of the ever increasing “NoLicense” vote. The great majority of the public are allowed by the apathy of the trade to see one side of the question only. It therefore becomes the duty of the trade itself to show cause —and good cause can be shown if the business is proceeded with properly—why judgment should not again be given against them, on the appeal 'by the “No-License” people to the electors. A STRENUOUS CAMPAIGN. The campaign that has to be conducted, if the trade protest against recent legislation and its proposed extinction is to be made effective, will be a strenuous one. It will necessitate the expenditure of large sums of

money, and the creation of a fighting fund of very considerable dimensions. Money is being spent freely and effectively on the other side, and practically the whole of the money so expended is freely and ungrudgingly given by the supporters of the “No-License” party. To be successful in the coming appeal to the people, the trade must emulate their example. We believe we are right in saying that some big proposals are to be brought before the trade in Wellington next week. It is impossible to indicate their exact character, and, even were we in a position to outline the proposals, that are to be placed before the delegates, it would be indiscreet to do so, at the present juncture. But we are sufficiently in the confidence of those who are moving in the matter, to say that a comprehensive plan of campaign will be submitted to the trade delegates at the several conferences, and that the proposals likely to be submitted, are of a farreaching and effective character. We may go further, and say that to a very large: extent the future of the trade depends upon the manner in which it receives those proposals. If action is to be made effective, it must be taken at once. The trade has “a big row to hoe”—a row that is bigger and the hoeing of which may be more difficult than any it has yet attempted.

But it can be done, and we believe effectively, if unity of counsels prevail, and a big. determined effort is put forth by the members of the trade generally. The present is undoubtedly the time for action. The longer that action is deferred the more heavily the trade will find itself handicapped. It is folly and mere affectation to ignore the strength of the enemy, or to pooh pooh that enemy’s efforts. The “No-License” party is full of life and vigour. It leaves no stone unturned to discredit the trade. Its tactics are varied and are characterised by a good deal of downright dishonest misrepresentation and calumny. To expose that sort of thing end to point out the true issues involved, in the appeal for local “NoLicense” and Dominion Prohibition, is only a small part of the work to which the trade must put its hand and the sooner its members are up and doing the better.

THE PROFESSOR AND THE PARSON.

MR. SMALLFIELD’S REPLY TO PROFESSOR SALMOND. AN INCONSEQUENTIAL ANSWER. The publication of Professor Salmond’s pamphlet “ Prohibition a Blunder” has opened up oceans of correspondence in the columns of the daily and weekly press, in which the Professor is placed in the public pillory, and hectored, bullied, lectured, scolded and held up to ridicule at the sweet will and fancy of a little world of newspaper controversialists, that, “intoxicated with the exuberance of its own verbosity” has evidently run mad. Now-a-days, any man who has the courage of his opinions, and who is prepared to stand or fall by his principles, is in similar danger of being. pilloried by the fanatical horde of “wowser” led immoderates who are now barking at Professor Salmond. The general run of newspaper correspondents of this class need not be taken too seriously. They pretest too much, shriek too loudly through the printed page, and betray a lack of reasoning powers that stamps them for what they are. But when the “New Zealand Herald” calls

to its aid the editor of a Prohibitionist paper, in the person of the Rev. P. A. Smallfield, to “review” Professor Salmond’s pamphlet, we are constrained to remark that, in the first place, the Editor of the “Herald” has blundered badly, and in the second that the evidence of an opinion, too strongly fettered by prejudice to be impartial, is so overwhelmingly present in the “review” itself, as to utterly destroy its value from the judicial or deliberative standpoint. As readers of the “L.V. Gazette,” will have gathered from the “Otago Daily Times” review of Professor Salmond’s very able and interesting pamphlet, republished in this journal, the whole of the questions involved have been dealt with clearly, logically, impartially and dispassionately. The pamphlet itself consists of 68 pages of matter, -written, as Mr. Smallfield is pleased to admit, “in a most charming and interesting fashion.” Yet Mr. Smallfield attempts to reply to Mr. Salmond’s arguments in something less than a column and a half of “Herald” matter, and such apparently is the paucity of his own ideas upon the subject that he says: “With a view to greater effectiveness, I shall freely avail myself of the material and even the words of a reply to the pamphlet written by Mr Alex. S. Adams in the “Otago Witness.” V « • “A DANIEL COME TO JUDGMENT.” It is to be regretted that Mr. Smallfield should not have seen fit to quote the “material” and “words” that he uses from Mr. Adams’ reply. Had he done so the public would then be in the happy position of being able to discriminate between the parsonic arguments on the one hand and those of the lawyer on the other. Waiving that point, however,' we find Mr. (or is it Mr. Adams?) starting his criticism with: “The arguments presented by Dr. Salmond are practically worn out,” and we are further told “they are mainly those current in the later decades of last century.” as also that “the pamphlet echoes the voices of the past,” and then again “The antiquated objections. based upon interpretations of Scripture, the political principles of the ‘laissez-faire’ school, the wholesale condemnation of sumptuary laws, the bogey of the seven devils that will infallibly take possession of a community if drink be banished from it; the amazing confusion between the rights and duties , of society and the rights and duties of the individual citizen; the ‘personal liberty’ arguments; the anarchist contention that the prohibition law will not be obeyed; the' contempt for recent inquiry and conclusions of eminent scientists, sociologists, and panologists, with world-wide reputations; the depreciation of statistics, all these are there, and nothing more.” With this said, it is almost a wonder that Mr Small'field (or Mr Adams?) should have found it necessary to carry his criticism of the pamphlet further. More sweeping condemnation could hardly have been passed upon it. And yet how true it is that “Any little soul Easily can pick a hole.” Mr Smallfield (or Mi’ Adams again) is evidently a past master in that direction. • • « CRITICISMS THAT FAIL. The criticism thence out assails Professor Salmond’s “Arguments from the Bible,” the Professor’s “dismay” at “the possible effects of the passing of prohibition,” and goes on to express the opinion that “Professor Salmond has really failed to grasp the foundation principles of the prohibition movement.” On the contrary, the Professor, has shown, both logically and conclusively, that the movement against which he has written is “vicious in principle, and that the country is in danger of being seriously misled” by men of the Smallfield and Adams type. The nature of the criticisms which the “New Zea-

land Herald” has gone out of its way to allow Mi' Smallfield to publish, were anticipated by Professor Salmond, who expected “nothing but severe criticism and relentless hostility” for his outspoken remarks, and who, in the preface to his pamphlet, points out that the success of the “Prohibition movement” has silenced opposition in the assemblies and conferences of most of the churches . . . has made members

of Parliament and newspapers a little afraid, so that they do little more than hint opposition, and speak of the question with bated breath and whispering humbleness..” Tn some quarters it has become “even tyrannical; in many a district a clergyman publicly declaring his dissent would find his life made unhappy; and some regard it as' even tantamount to a moral triumph that matters have come to such a pass. But,” says Professor Salmond, “this only makes more urgent the duty of open speech and of fearless remonstrance on the part of those who are convinced that Prohibition is a harsh and crude measure, which cannot possibly be ultimately successful or obtain permanent hold, and who are persuaded that its temporary triumph will fill the country with turmoil, will generate discontent and bitter passion from Dan to Beersheba and land us in a quagmire of hypocrisy and fanaticism.” And, with all the objections urged by Mr. Smallfield or Mr. Adams, it is pretty evident the last word rests with Professor Salmond who has common sense, reason and logic on his side.

have appreciated the comforts of the Waverley during Mr O’Connor’s long and honorable connection with that famous hostelry, should nor. be slow in looking him up when they come to ■ own.

The “New Zealand Herald” has hitherto enjoyed the reputation of being a fair-minded journal. The fact that it permitted the Revd. P. S. Smallfield, the Editor of the Prohibitionist “Home Journal” to review Professor Salmond’s pamphlet, “Prohibition A Blunder,” shows (just as straws indicate the direction of the wind) that the day in which it could be said to have had the courage of its opinions has fled. It has no opinions worth holding, except that the getting of money is the prime end of a newspaper’s existence. On he face of things, it would appear ;o have, invited Mr Smallfield to review the Salmond pamphlet with the idea of coercing the trade—always a prolific source of crime to its proprie. ary. The only answer to such a situation would be for every “Herald” advertiser, interested in the Trade, to withdraw his advertisement. Some people can only be reached ihrough .he pockets. The “Herald” proprietary seemingly belongs to that class. It is doubtful if there is another paper in Aus ralasia. the Editor of which would have acted more indiscreetly than he “erald” man has clone in reques ing, or permitting, a Prohibitionist Editor, to review a pamphlet aimed at he prohibition movement But the “Herald” is so man fes ly lacking in brains, that

have so far fettered hotel licensees and the public patronising their hotels, that they have come to look upon the hotels as little better than prisons, and those who use them as prisoners? Or is it merely the unconscious irony of the Census men who, in outlining the draft of the Census schedule, say iter alia, “the matters to be enumerated include the nature of the building (to distinguish an hotel from a prison), the material of which it is built,” etc? As, in comparison with the number of hotels, there are very few prisons in New Zealand, it can only be assumed that the census man is having a quiet little joke at the expense of the hotelkeeper.

They all do it! The Melbourne “Age” recently published a telegram from Sydney, stating that William Sidney Leonard, a “No License” advocate and a candidate at the State elections last year, had been fined £3O, in default three months imprisonment, for sly grog-selling. Frank Hadden, on a charge of aiding and abetting Leonard, was similarly fined.

Ex-Brigadier Bruntnell, of the Salvation Army, well-known both in this country and Australia as a strenuous “No-License” advocate, has resigned his connection with the New

Votes Recorded for Year. . „ Contin.Reduc. ■ No--License. 1896 ... 139 580 - 94,555 98,312 1S99 .. . .... 142,443 107,751 118 575 1902 . . ...... 148,449 132 240 " 151,524 1905 .. . ...... 182.884 151.057 198,768 1908 ... 188 140 162,562 221,471