NO-LICENSE INCREASES DRUNKENNESS.

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

NO-LICENSE INCREASES DRUNKENNESS.

A “VANGUARD WRITER’S LOGIC. “DRY” DISTRICTS MAKE “WET” DISTRICTS WETTER. A curiously inconsequential article appears in “The Vanguard” of April. 15th. Dealing wth “ The New Zealand Drink Bill,” the writer (Mr. J. McCombs) essays to answer the question “ Does No-License Dimmish Drunkenness?” In attempting to prove his point, he shows, _ incidentally,'that it has had the effect of increasing the drink bill in the areas still remaining under license. Relying on certain Parliamentary returns (H-30a and U-30b)) he alleges that “ the total quantities of liquor legally imported into the No-License electorates” represented an expenditure of £144,331 upon liquor in those districts last year. Averaging this on the population basis, in the same way that the Dominion Liquor Bill is averaged, he finds this represents an expenditure of 18/0% per head in No-License areas, as against £4 3s l%d per head in the license areas. Mr. McCombs thus improves upon the Revd. Edward Walker’s figures, wh’ch showed that the expenditure per head of the population had advanced from £3 Ils 0y 2 d in 1909 to £3 13s 1% in 1910, and that, for the Dominion, the increased expenditure upon liquors of all kinds was represented by a sum of £175,301. Mr. McCombs accepts Mr. Walker’s figures, as giving the per capita expenditure for the Dominion, but his chief concern seems to be to show that the increased consumption of alcoholic liquors in New Zealand, is due to the increased expenditure in license districts, rather than in those that have “ gone dry.” With commendable ingenuity, and a certain skilful brushing away of facts that seems likely to upset his contentions, he argues that “ the consumption of liquor in licensed areas is increasing at such a rate as to swamp the decrease in the No-Li-cense areas.” thus “ accounting for our increased drink bill.” 9 9 • THE UNRECORDED SALES The license areas of New Zealand, which still constitute the majority, are held up by Mr. McCombs as the shocking examples, affecting the virtue and happiness of the No-License areas. Having effectually (that is, to his own satisfaction) disposed of (the question as to where the increased consumption is taking pla'-e, the “ Vanguard” writer, with an obvious disregard for the real facts of the case, and clearly guessing at the amount, declares that “ £lO,OOO would probably more than cover the amount of liquor that goes illicitly into the No-License areas annually. “ But,” he proceeds, “ for the sake of argument, the sum might be put as high as £15,000. and still the drink bill per head of population in No-License areas w’ould not exceed £l, while in license areas it would be over £4 per head. Anyhow, where does the illicit liquor come from? It comes from license areas, and is, therefore, directly chargeable to the evils of license. The remedy is more No-Li-cense!” For a presumably intelligent man Mr. McCombs is very simple; and for a man with a presumably analytical mind, he is more than purblind. He leaves out of his calculations (if he has made any) certain very important factors, which he could scarcely have overlooked, had he been acquainted with the facts and the Jaw! The Parliamentary returns, upon which the,whole of his premises are based deal only with the liquor sent into No-License districts. They take no account of liquor lawfully taken into such districts, by the residents themselves, and concerning which it is not incumbent that any declaration shall be made. As the law now stands, any resident of a No-License district! may take with him, into his district, a quart of spirits, or a gallon

of beer on any one day in the wee'k, in which it is lawful for him to purchase such liquors in licensed areas. And he is under no obligation to report the fact that he is carrying liquor in such quantities into the district. Mr. McCombs makes no allowance in respect of the consuihption of such liquors, nor does he debit the No-License districts with their cost, although we are wfthin the mark in saying that the £lO,OOO per annum he allows for illicit sales, would scarcely cover the legitimately unrecorded expenditure of the residents of any of the suburban electorates that are under No-License. ♦ » * THE CASE OF GREY LYNN. Mr (McCombs has only attempted to deal with the case of Grey Lynn, ignorng the Wellington suburban electorates (Wellington South and Wellington Suburbs) that “went dry” in 1908. It is not’ceable, that the

one statement he seeks to make authoritatively about Grey Lynn is incorrect, because he says that it “ never contained more than one hotel.” It only had the one hotel when it first carried no-license, but other hotels had previously been wiped out under the Reduction Vote. Leaving that point, however, we have this fact clearly established. There were, in Grey Lynn, in 1908, 2050 persons who voted for Restoration. Now, it is only reasonable to assume that these 2050 people are moderate drinkers, and that the greater number of them are in touch with the city daily, probably engaged in business there. Assuming then, that these 2050 persons only averaged an expenditure of threepence per day, for the 312 days in the year in which the hotels are legitimately open, they would spend close upon £B,OOO (£7,805 12s 6d to be exact) in the twelve months. They probably spend a great deal more. We are, therefore, well within the mark, in saying that the people of Grey Lynn alone, would spend at

least the £lO,OOO per annum, allocated as illicit exepnditure amongst all the No-Lcense districts, by the very ingenious Mr. McCombs. Then there are Eden and the two Wellington electorates to be taken into account. In the former, 2249 electors, and in 'the two latter, 2241 and 2448 voted for Continuance. Averaging their daily expenditure at the same rhte as Grey Lynn (i.e., threepence per head per day) it will be found that their unrecorded, • yet perfectly legitimate expenditure, would be over £27,000 per annum, and probably a great deal more. We should not, indeed, be far wrong in placing the total for the four electorates, at four times the amount, given by Mr. McCombs as the illicit expenditure for the whole of the No-License districts. It is a less easy matter to arrive at what that illicit expenditure may be. But, £lO,OOO is a ridiculously low figure at which to place it, for there are twelve No-License ’districts, and “ sly-groggeries” are known, to exist

in each and all of them. Beyond these, there is always a certain amount of liquor smuggled into the electorates. Mr. McCombs’ figures are consequently very wide of the mark, and absolutely unreliable. * « • A CASE THAT FAILS. On a former occasion we ventured to express the opinion that there was as much liquor consumed by the residents of Grey Lynn as, for instance, by those of Auckland West, Mr. C. H. Poole’s electorate. We see no reason to alter that opinion. The mistake the Prohibitionist McCombs makes in assuming that there can be any record of the legal consumpton of liquor in a No-License district. In the absence of complete records it is worse than folly to attempt, as Mr. McCombs does, to allocate the drink . bill, as between license and No-License districts. Were it possible to get at the facts, it would probably be found that the residents of the Auckland Central, Auckland

East and Auckland West districts (all included in the city boundaries as one licensing district) consume no more liquor, on the per capita basis, than the residents of Grey Lynn or Eden. But Mr. McCombs thinks otherwise, and has proved to his own satisfaction that, while No-License has greatly diminished drunkenness in No-License districts, it has increased it in the license districts. True, he doesn’t exactly put it that way, but that it is the effect of his reasoning, and of his inconsequential contention that “ the -remedy is more No-Li-cense.” If the effect of carrying NoLicense in twelve districts has simply been to increase the drinking in the 64 license districts, there must be something radically wrong with the people of those districts. Does Mr. McCombs wish us to believe they are more drunken and dissolute than they were prior to the introduction, of NoLicense and the semi-prohibitive law? And are we to understand that the mere contemplation of the shockihg example of deadly stodginess of life and manners, set by the No-Li-cense districts, is driving the balance of the population to deeper bouts of intoxication? Both ideas are as absurd as Mr. McCombs’s conclusion that there is such a tremendous disparity in the amount of drinking carried on by residents of license districts as compared with the No-Li-cense communities. The perfectly legitimate and lawful appetites of humanity will find satisfaction, in spite of all Prohibitory laws, and the man who feels that his rights and liberties are assailed, is not likely to allow his actions to be controlled by the puri tanical crowd that has deprived him of his full liberty of action.