THE LICENSING POLLS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XX, Issue 1131, 14 December 1911, Page 20

THE LICENSING POLLS.

A LOCAL NO-LICENSE SET BACK. THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION ISSUE. A curious feature of the Licensing polls is the discrepancy between the votes polled for local No-License, and those t gi,ven in favqur of Prohibition. The difference is so marked that it can only be accounted for in one of two ways. Either the issues were misunderstood, or else the electors, constituting the majority, are convinced that local Nolicense places an unfair handicap upon the electors, in certain portions of the Dominion, that would be removed were National Prohibition enforced. Assuming the latter to be the correct view of the situation, it is easily understood that there would be a very considerable difference in the votes cast on the two issues. But there are good grounds for believing tha.t a large number of electors were misled by the wording of the ballot papers, and that the large preponderance of votes in favour of National Prohibition was due to that fact. On the one ballot paper (that for local option) there could be no possible misunderstanding of the issues raised. They were clearly stated as follows: I VOTE FOR CONTINUANCES.' I VOTE FOR NO-LICENSE. In striking out the bottom line the elector knew exactly what he was doing. But the National issue was stated differently. Had the wording been substantially the same, as in the local option ballot paper, no confusion would have been possible. But on the second ballot paper the issues were: I VOTE AGAINST NATIONAL PROHIBITION. I VOTE FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. And we are assured that many electors struck' out the top line believing that they were voting for continuance in doing so. As a matter of fact, in our limited experience, we know of at least a score of electors who were misled in this way, and the officials of the Auckland L.V. Association have heard of many other similar cases. The issues should have been stated in the same way as on the local option papers, viz: I VOTE FOR CONTINUANCE. I VOTE FOR NATIONAL PROHIBITION. No mistake could then have arisen, nor could there have been a doubt placed upon the bona-fides of the vote recorded on Thursday. ■Jf. "ff. * IN CURIOUS CONTRAST. Take the leading metropolitan electorates as cases in point, it is evident that some mistake of the character recorded must have been made by very many electors. Auckland, for Instance, which In the three electorates (East, West and Central) gave

a majority of 2140 for No-license in 1908, reversed its vote, substituting a majority of 840 for continuance, and yet gave a majority of 1152 for Prohibition. In Wellington again the 1908 majority of 2093 in favour of iNoi-license was into a minority of 2468. But the National Prohibition issue came within an ace of [being carried on the bare majority vote, only falling short of the required number by 240. Christchurch again gave a majority of 1018 for continuance, thus reversing its 1908 majority of 333 votes in favour of local No-license.- But here again the Prohibition issue was carried by 1661 votes. Dunedin reduced its 1908 Nolicense majority of 2914 votes to 435, but recorded a majority of 3326 in favour of Prohibition. And the same discrepancies were noticeable in most of the other electorates. We could understand such a vote, had there been some preconcerted movement to enforce the’ No-license-No-liquor principle, and to let the local issue go by the board. But there is absolutely nothing to 'show that any general movement has been taken in that direction. On the other hand, there is, as already stated, a considerable volume of evidence supporting the idea that misunderstanding arose in connection with the voting on the National Prohibition issue. In support of this theory we have been handed the following letter, which was forwarded to the secretary of the Auckland L.V. Association a few days before the. polling took place“21st November, 1911. “The Hon. Secretary, Licensed Victuallers’ Association, Auckland. “Dear Sir, —I beg to draw your attention to a point that may have escaped your notice in connection with the forthcoming licensing poll. Unless some warning is circulated I am of opinion, that, owing to the wording of the ballot paper, a great many voters will strike out the top line on the prohibition paper, in the mistaken notion that they are voting against National Prohibition. A lot of people are easily confused, as I have proved by trying them with a ballot paper. It would be a pity to see a baneful blight (prohibition) in the coun--11 try assisted by misadventure. — Yours truly, PROPHET.” In another case an elector, certainly well above the average of intelligence told the President of the Auckland Licensed Victuallers’ Association that he got on all right with the No-license issue. “I struck out the bottom line,” he said, “as you people advised; but the National Prohibition paper puzzled me. It took a lot of thinking, but I saw at last there was only the one thing for it to strike out the top line. Of course I was against National Prohibition.” And it took a very long time to persuade this gentleman that instead of voting against he had voted for prohibition. THE PROHIBITION VOTE. On the present occasion we do not propose to discuss the detailed pollings. That we hope to do when the completed and verified returns are before us, as we hope they may be next week. The position, however, save for the big Prohibition vote, remains unchanged. None of the Nolicense areas succeeded in carrying restoration, although in three electorates out of the twelve No-license electorates majorities were forthcoming in support of restoration, Ashburton leading the way with a majority of 425 in favour of restoration, Masterton coming next with 187, and Ohinemuri next with 173. On the bare majority principle 27 electorates would have gone dry, while in 35 the majorities favoured continuance. On the other hand the final returns give a majority of

52,081 in favour of National Prohibition, the figures being: — For National Prohibition 255,282 Against National Prohibition 203,201 Majority for Prohibition 52,081 It will thus be seen that 55-67 per cent of the electors voted for National Prohibition. If we take the No-license and Continuance votes of 1908. as a gauge of the growth of the Prohibition sentiment in this country we find, that while the vote in favour of continuance has advanced from 188,140 to 203,201, or by 15,061 votes, the Prohibition vote has increased by 33,811, rising from 221,471 in 1908 to 255,282 in 1911.