NO LICENSE IN NEW ZEALAND.
ONE of the most interesting phases of domestic politics in New Zealand to-day is the liquor question. A well known Sydney citizen, who had lived in New Zealand for some years prior to 1897, revisited that colony of experiments recently, and was struck by the apparent pronounced change in public opinion regarding the liquor traffic. In an interview with a Herald reporter, he said that in 1897 only one district, Clutha, had secured prohibition, and at that time it was regarded by many as a huge joke. But the districts adjoining Clutha on either side—Mataura and Bruce—have also now secured prohibition, while two districts adjoining—Invercargill and Awarua—each carried a vote for the reduction in the number of licenses, and each was within less than 100 votes of the majority required for prohibition. To secure prohibition, it is necessary to have a majority of three-fifths of the votes polled. On the other hand, when prohibition has been secured by any district, to reverse that decision it is necessary to obtain a three-fifths majority of the votes polled before any license can be restored. The effect is that the liquor party has now come to the conclusion that in no case where prohibition has been carried will they ever secure a reversion to the sale of liquor. The other divisions of New Zealand which voted the prohibition ticket are Port Chalmers and Ashburton, in the South Island, and Newtown, a suburb of Wellington in the North Island. It is felt by elderly men fond of a regular stimulant that the law is harsh and oppressive, but young men, most of whom only drink because of example or under pressure, are frankly pleased at the opportunity denied them, and as a rule, therefore, the young men's votes are given, mostly in favor of the temperance party. This means a big potential power for the teetotalers. The carrying of prohibition in Port Chalmers was a tremendous surprise. The electorates in Sydney which most resemble it, because it is a dock and sailors' port, are Pyrmont and Balmain. The Port Chalmers people, as a body, seem to be well pleased with the change. Prohibition carried in New Zealand means that the hotels have to close entirely without compensation of any kind. The general feeling of bankers and merchants has been steadily undergoing a change in New Zealand. At first they were inclined to treat the matter as a joke, but it is a rare thing now to find one of them actively opposed to prohibition, and the others, if not cordially in favor of it, are at any rate sympathetic, for the purely selfish reason that they find their accounts are better paid and the security is more stable in the prohibited areas.—Sydney Morning Herald.