The White Ribbon. For God and Home and Humanity. WELLINGTON, SEPT. 18, 1925. LIQUOR REFORM.

White Ribbon, Volume 30, Issue 363, 18 September 1925, Page 7

The White Ribbon. For God and Home and Humanity. WELLINGTON, SEPT. 18, 1925. LIQUOR REFORM.

Almost from the (lawn of history and In very early writings, which have come down to us, we learn that it was deemed necessary to regulate, end as far as possible control, the consumption of alcoholic liquors. Much later followed regulations for its sale. The British people re listed monopolies so strongly that *ven Elizabeth the Imperious, yielded most graciously to their wish in this matter, yet this same people handed over to a monop' ly the sale of alcoholic liquor. In course of time it became the wealthiest of monopolies, and also the gre; test hindrance to race development

and progressive legislation. Recognising that the sale of liquor must be controlled with the usual British spirit of compromise, they issued licenses (practically monopolies! for the sale of alcoholic liquor. And we, thoir descendants, have proved to the very hilt the truth of the star’s words: “They enslave their children’s children, who make compromise with sin."

Then commenced the long campaign, still being waged in every land, to control a trad** which is uncontrolable, because *t panders to man’s weakness, and is bolstered up by greed and appetite; and to regulate a trade which refuses to be regulated.

We have travelled far from the day when the drink shop had over its door: “Get drunk here for a penny, and dead drunk for threepence." Now it is a punishable offence to be drunk and incapable. As a matter of fact w** have been twitted with making the trade “too respectable." What an impossibility! You cannot make it respectable because you cannot make it law abiding. The Yankee, with his shrewd com-mon-sense, has realised, by long trial, that the trade can’t he mended, and so has decided to end it.

Legally ended in U.S.A., it is by the “will of the people,” expressed in the strongest possible way. But this trade is in open warfare with the Government, it has slain over 50 oiiicers charged with the enforcement of the law. The people of the U.S.A. are awake to the danger; they have lately elected the driest Congress ever put in power; they realise howvital is the question—“ Who is to rule the U.S.A., the people or the liquor trade?” The people have determined to rule, the trade has rebelled, and the Government is now engaged in crushing this open rebellion. It is only a matter of time. Every State had the same fight when it first went dry, but found as time passed on that it reared a generation of citizens who are free, not the slaves of strong driuk. The trade has retired from these States. beaten as it will be right throughout the nation. To reform is impossible, to end is a logical proposition.

In this Dominion the wish of the electors to end tills trade has been defeated time and again, by an unjust handicap, at the ballot box,

STATE CONTROL. At every election the trad** bobs up with a new r name and a new dress. It is masquerading now as State oi Corporate Control. We II read the following testimony from Canada: “Mrs Nellie M'Cluny, a gifted Canadian authoress, writes thus of her experience of the State Liquor Traffic in the Canadian Province of British Columbia—“‘l have no hesitation in saying that ‘Government Control,’ as seen here, is worse than the old liquorbar system.'

“She adds that women did not frequent the liquor bars under tin* license system as they now frequent the Government liquoi stores; the convictions against law-breakers were more easily secured when the Government did not manage the traffic, and therefore hud no reason for sheltering the drunken offenders, and there would now be more arrests if the offenders were not the customers of tin* Government." State Control makes every * lector a shareholder in this business. Wh> should electors who oppose the traffic and know its evils be forced to be shareholders in it? What a farce to waste the time of Parliament passing laws, which you know will never be obeyed. Can you take up a single daily paper without seeing someone up for breaking a licensing law. Either it is selling after hours, selling to minors, or selling to prohibited persons. A poor woman is sent weeping from the Court to Papatoa. She was prohibited, but liquor was sold her; she begs to lx* allowed to go home to her husband on the farm, but for her own sake is sent to detention. SELLING TO MINORS.

Judging by the number of cases which come before the Court, and which, of course, can only form a small percentage of the total, this must be fairly common. A case which emphasises the evil of wine shops came before the Court in Hawera lately. Three young men, one just of age, the others 16 to 18 respectively, were served with liquor in a wine shop, and not for the first time. They went into the ladies’ room, drank wine with two girls, and then the five left the wine shop together. Their noisy conduct attracted the attention of the police, hence the case. The lad of 16 testified

that he had been served in bars before, and that the licensee of this particular shop had asked him why lie had not been in lately. A conviction was recorded, and the licensee is to come up to the Supreme Court to show <ause why his license should not be endorsed. To effectually control a traffic like this when a man encourages minors of both sexes to meet in his ladies’ room to consume so much wine that their subsequent conduct in the street attracts the notice of the police, surely the magistral should have the power to decide that such a man is not a fit and proper person to hold a license, and should be enabled to cancel this license. Moreover, if a provision was made that no license should be granted to the same house for a period of say 1 2 months, it would make property-owners careful whom they took as tenants.

REASONABLE CAUSE TO RELIEVE

But a most glaring rase was before the Court in Christchurch lately. Two men of mature age took two girls. 16 and 17 respectively, into a bar and shouted whisky for them. The girls admitted the offence, and were committed to a home. Now comes the scandalous part. The licensee was summoned for supplying liquor, and the two men for aiding and abutting. But the case is dismissed because THEY HAD REASONABLE CAI’SE TO BELIEVE the girls were over 21 years of age. What a farce! We do not blame the magistrate, he does not make the laws, he only has to administer them as they stand. FLAPPERS. Much has been written and more said in blame of the dapper. Men in responsible positions have poured scorn upon the “flapper prostitute." They speak as if these girls, mere children some of them, were responsible for the immorality and depravity so deplored at present. The flapper is not the greatest sinner. The sinner is the man of mature age who takes these children into hotel bars and aided by the publican and abetted by a law which is “a hass," having left open in “reasonable cause to believe” a gateway through which a six-ton motor lorry can be driven shouts whisk) for them, and when drugged hv the strong spirit they fall his victims, they are

detained In custody, lie is free to uo his evil way, and further debauch the girlhood of our land. Is it not time that the mothers rose in protection of their hoys and girls, and demanded that the law be made effective.

That boys of 18 shall not be accosted by a land'ord and asked why they not been in lately, that they shall not be taken into a side-room, introduced to girls, allowed to drink together That girls of 18 shall not be shouted whisky at a bar by men. Do you want to stop this gradual sapping of the moral fibre of the young. There is only one way end the traffic. It WON’T be mended VOTtf PROHIBITION!