THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1127, 16 November 1911, Page 20

THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN NEW ZEALAND.

IS PROHIBITION NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE?

BOTH QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

By “Liberty” (W. H. Connors). Why Prohibition? No-license advocates and supporters of the New Zealand Alliance platform; which, has as its objective the abolition of the liquor traffic, tell us tha,t the evils of intemperance have become so pronounced in this young nation of ours, that the manufacture, importation, sale, and even the use of alcoholic beverages must be prohibited in this Dominion. But why? Are we other than a sober, temperate people? In asking the question, I do not, of course, intend to place on one side, as unworthy of consideration, the fact that there are in the community men and women —the weaklings of Society—who have fallen victims to the drink habit. But while this is so, it is indisputable that 98 (probably 99) per cent of the population remain unaffected, and it seems to me rather unnecessary to penalise the whole of the community, simply because those who may be termed “the unfit” fail to keep their balance, when the opportunity is afforded them of indulging in strong waters. In these days, we are hearing a good deal con-’ cerning the so-called science of Eugenics. Our Chief Justice is popularly credited with holding very pronounced views upon the question; the Hon. the Attorney-General is believed to be favourable to an amendment of the law that would require all candidates for marriage to pass a medical examination before they were allowed to assume marital relationships, and at least one of our former legislators, Dr. Chapple, now a member of the British House of Commons, has discoursed learnedly upon “The Fertility cf the Unfit,” and suggested emasculation, in the case of those whom it might be considered undesirable to permit, to propagate their species. It can scarcely be. denied, therefore, that there is, on the part of our public men, a growing recognition of the fact, that a certain section of the human family is less fitted (either as the result of disease, habit, or environment), to play its part in the world than the remainder- But he who would urge that, because that section was unfit to assume the responsibilities of parentage, that the remainder should be debarred from marrying, or giving in marriage, would rightly be regarded as either a fool or a madman. It may be siaid, that I am starting out with a very far-fetch-ed simile, yet the underlying principle of the prohibition movement, is the same as that which prompts the societies formed for the study of Eugenics, to work in the direction of securing legislation for the elimination of the unfit, on the lines hinted fit. At the back of the Prohibition movement lies the very unsatisfactory assumption that men and women can be made moral and sober by Act of Parliament —that, by the force of restriction, they may be weaned from hlabits Whidh , are, perhaps,. tightly regarded as baneful, in their effect upon themselves and others. Because certain people abuse the good things that Providence has bestowed upon mankind, the Prohibitionists urge that everyone else should be debarred from using them. But why, and for what reason? There is nothing immortal, unlawful, or even objectionable in their moderate use, and, on the otner hand, very considerable benefit has been conferred upon the race by the use of stimulants. When I have heard the Alliance people, from time to time, demanding the prohibitory law as a remedy for drunkenness, I have recalled, again and again, the ter&ely severe, comment of a Supreme Court'Judge in America, who remarked when certain evidence was placed before him, “It is a question whether

the prohibitory law makes more hypocrites or drunkards- What is it doing, or rather what is it likely to do in New Zealand?

THE EFFECTS OF NO-LICENSE. We have been told that the drink traffic is hopeless; that it is surrounded by gigantic evils; that it is a curs® upon the lives and homes of the people, and I remember hearing one Tem ; perance (?) lecturer describe, it as “conceived in hell and spawned by the devil.” I cannot say that the expression grefitjy shocked me l , because I was rather amused, than otherwise, at the speaker’s grotesquely violent speech. But I could, not help thinking of the days when, as a schoolboy, I read the story of Noah,, and remembered that, in his time,, with neither brewer nor publican to lefid him astray, the misguided man made wine from the juice of the grape,, and imbibed to excess, so that he became drunk. And I wondered what would happen in this country, under the Prohibtionist regHne, my friend the Temperance orator (who, by the way, kept a sharp eye on the collection plates) seemed so anxious we should adopt. I thought of the mfiny cases of sly grog selling that had come under my notice in the South Island —of the bad liquor, manufactured and sold in No-license districts, and of the many unsuccessful attempts that had been made to enforce the semi-prohibitive Taw in those districts. I remembered an offer, made to me by a resident of one Southern town, in which I sojourned for a few days, that he would “take me to eleven sly groggeries,” within sight or the place where we were standing, it I would give him my solemn assurance that I would not give information to the police upon the subject. “And,” he said, to clench the business, “I’ll guarantee to get you as much beer or whisky as you want in any one of them. But,” he added, “I won’t say you’ll get the real Mackay in any of them, for a good deal of methylated spirits, doctored, of course, is sold here as whisky.” And, while I was in the town, I was told of raid made by the police upon one of the hotels (then run as a boardinghouse), that had been deprived of its license as a result of the Local Option poll. If I remember rightly, the police made the magnificent haul cf one big bottle of beer (unopened) and another about half-full,. yet both before, and after the police raid, large quantities of liquor were consumed on the premises! The man, of course, received what is termed, “the office” before the raid, and was enabled to shift his stuff to just about the last place the police would have searched for it, had they been in the mind to do so. Again, I remembered that in the same town, I called upon friend who started to “make his own wine” after No-license was carried “I wasn’t going to let them do me out of my glass of wine,” he said, “so I got some small casks, and we made fill our small fruits into wine. It’s not half bad. Try a glass, headded; as with evident pride he handed me a small tumbler, three parts full of a fruity-looking liquor, that proved to be more “heady” than any wine I had previously tasted, and that seemed to contain more alcohol than a glass of raw spirits. I tasted, and hft it, feeling satisfied in my own. .mind that if I drank it I should have a difficulty in getting back to the boarding-house, where I was staying at the time. I was not surprised to hear that there was a pronounced feeling of discontent with the No-li-cense law, and that fi large vote was likely to be cast in favour of Restoraton at the next Local Option polls. But it is sometimes easier to put one’s head into a nooze than it is to get it out again, find, so far, the numbers have remained against themalcontents, a number of whom, 1 was told, actually helped to carry Nolicense, because they thought there would be no difflculty in maintaining: their own supplies.