Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1874-05-08

In the Dominion House of Commons,
April 29th, an important discussion took
place on the subject of proposed prohibit
tory liquor law. in the course of which Mr.
Mckenzie the Premier of the Canadian
government, announced himself in favor Of
prohibitory law, though he considered
doubtless correctly, that public opinion was
not yet ripe for such measure We copy
from the legislative report in the Montreal
Gazette:
Mr.. Ross (Middlescx) moved adoption OF
report of the Select Committee on Petitions
for prohibitory liquor law. lie urged that,
a. set forth in the report, the feeling in IA
y0r of a prohibitory liquor law was wide
spread and increasing. Last year the pc
titions were signed by 80, 900 people, as well
as by heads Of corporations representing
100, s9j individuals. This year, up to Sat
urday last, the petition in this behalf had
contained 1852 signatures, and signed by
corporations representing 362, 1876 people.
| There had also been a petition unanimously
/ signed by the Legislature of New Bruins
wick. 1t had been said that the passage of
prOhlbt0ry law would make too radical a
| change, but he contended that other changes
Just as radical had been effected without
petition of the people. Among these were
the introduction of the ballot, etc. Drink
ing and crime were on the increase. Dur
ing the last few years crime had
increased in Canada 20 IL per cent, whilst
the increase in population had only been
4.s2. The commitments had averaged 33i,
per cent, and OF these, Al per cent were for
drunkenness. lie gave statements collected
from the principal cities of the Dominion,
in proof OF the increase of the dire traffic
which was now so alarming as to necessitate
immediate interference. lie denied that the
liquor traffic was a trade, it WAS only an
evil which was but tolerated because it was
impossible to get rid of it. lie instanced
the restrictions which were placed upon the
trade as proofs that Government did not
recognize it as legitimate trade, or they
would instead OF restricting it do their
utmost to foster it. The liquor traffic was
blow at the industrial capacity of Canada,
and thus blow at the revenue OF the cOun-
try and decided blow al the foundations of
our national wealth, which instead OF being
depleted by the passage of a prohibitory law
would be most largely increased. lie
quoted from a statement submitted to the
English House of Commons, which held that |
the liquor traffic decreased our industrial |
power byat least one-sixth, and citing Hoyle, |
showed that pauperism was in about thesame |
proportion a. the decrease in labor power. |
Assuming that the loss OF labor power IN |
Canada was only one-tenth out OF work
ing population of one million. W. lost the |
labor annually of 100000 individuals. |
What would not the Minister of Agricul
ture give for an annual increase to the
country of the industrial energies of 100 900
men, each of whom at the lowest calcula-
ton was worth LOCO to the country? A
calculation had been made that we used
S25. 600 900 worth of liquor annually, to
distribute which only about IA 900 people
were EMPLOYED, whilst industries of an
equal amount would supply work for six or
seven times that number of men, while the
collection of revenue on liquor cost far
more than the receipts, the cost of the rev.
enue derived from liquors, inclusive of the
cost of Justice, the loss OF industrial
power and of life which was at least
one in a thousand, being upwards oil
six dollars for every five collected from
this source. lie contended that the
sacrifices made for this revenue from
liquor were far too much, and he
hoped that when the question came up |,
rom revenue standpoint the House should
place at their proper value the lives and the g
happiness of our people; and when the
question came up in its entirety, he hoped
hat the moral veal and the education of !
,ur people would be held of far more value '
han the pecuniary loss. if any, ard he de- !
lied that there was loss, which might .
ccrue from total prohibition. !.
Mr.. Ross sat down amid cheers from all J
ides of the House. Z
Mr.. Farrow said the House was greatly q
Indebted to the Hon. gentleman who had !,
lst taken his seat for the able speech he :,
lad made upon this subject. lie desired to
est the House upon this matter, and there j
Ore would move the following amendment i,
THAT the traffic in intoxicating liquors is an
vii for which the laws Of the country provide no
iequate remedy, and that 1t is desirable to pro- u
hit the importation and manufacture OF intoxi-
lting liquors in the Dominion except for medicinal
nd manufacturing purposes" q
Hon. Messrs. Cauchon and j. Ii. Cam 81
ron held that the amendment was out Of b
-der.
Hon. Mr.. Mackenzie expressed himself in b
vor of prohibitory liquor law, but he Il
,cognized the necessity Of educating the u
iblic mind in this respect before introduce o.
Y a measure of that character. He re- X
srded the motion as out of order because OF
involved change in the taxation of the d
untry. "
After discussion as to the motion being in X
der, Mr.. Farrow withdrew his amend II
emit, and the Houss adjourned without It
tion. 81