• DRINK AND THE NATION •
[To the Editor of the SpneTaroa.] Sin,—" One of the Commissioners" in your issue of January 23rd, makes such a curious statement that I cannot
let it pass unchallenged. '
Explaining that the majority of the Commissioners held the view that universal State acquisition of the Drink Trade was out of the question for the time being, he says, "They could; however, and they did recommend progressive State acquisi- tion." But where is such a definite recommendation to be found ? "One of the Commissioners" knows as well as I, that if such a definite statement had been proposed, the Com- mission would have immediately split into two. So the majority made the alternative proposal—i.e., following a survey of each area by the Justices, Compensation levy to be trebled and mortgaged for fifteen yeah.: in order to provide the necessary money to close redundant houses in seven years: An area (the words of the Report) to be taken fOr a further experiment in public ownership. It is nowhere suggested that after this scheme had been in operation for several years, during which Period the brewers would have paid a trebled compensation levy and at the Same time had spent considerable sums in improving and enlarging the houses which were' not "redundant," the cominittidners could schedule one area after- another for "progressive state acquisition." The chief objection to the Majority scheme, in my view, is that it in- evitably gives the brewer complete security for fifteen years.
Previous page
