THE OBJECTIONS TO STATE PURCHASE.
TART us take in order the objections which are likely to be made to the proposal for State purchase. The first will be that it will cost too much. We are not, of course, in a position to make more than a very vague guess as to what it will cost, but let us assume the amount to be eight millions a year. Even if it comes to that, and if the Government literally make nothing out of the licensed victualler's business, which is almost incredible, for in our belief the public-houses will do exceedingly well as eating. houses and coffee-shops under disinterested management, the annual loss of these eight millions will be about the best bargain economically that the natien has ever made. All the reports from Russia show that the abolition of the sale of spirits has been justified ten or twenty times over if regarded solely from the economic side. Not only has a vast amount of wastage been prevented, but the increase in Russia's economic efficiency has proved a positive miracle. In addition, the cutting off of expendi- ture on vodka has acted like a rise in wages throughout Russia. The result is seen in the immense augmentation of small savings in the banks. We have not the slightest doubt that we should see similar results here after the sale of spirits had ceased, and when a disinterested management had withdrawn all salesmanship in respect of intoxicants. If we spend eight millions a year in securing complete State control of the liquor trade, we shall gave at least fifty millions that is now wasted, or much worse than wasted, in drugging a large section of our workmen and diminishing their industrial efficiency. On the financial side of the problem, then, we need have no anxieties whatever, but rather great and well-founded hopes. National bankruptcy is much more likely to come from too much than too little alcohol.
Upon what we may call the Socialistic side we have a word to say. As our readers know, we hate State owner- ship of industries, because in our opinion it is inefficient, and tends to low product; but in this particular case we cannot be expected to regard this as a disadvantage. The " Government stroke" in the matter of selling beer and other light intoxicants will suit us exactly. A witty Frenchman declared that it was the ideal of every State functionary to get at the top of a narrow passage and shout out : "On as passe pa s " We should not break our hearts if that wero to be the attitude adopted in front of the beer- barrel. Another and more serious objection is that which is threatened by the most advanced section of the Temperance Party. Hitherto they have taken up the line that it would not he safe to make the sale of liquor a State monopoly, because there would be too great a temptation to State financiers to raise money by the sale of intoxicants. In other words, they dread the State being exposed to the temptation of making money by pressing the sale of liquors. We can quite well appreciate the strength of this argument, though we have always thought the high taxation already derived from liquor robs it very largely of its force. Be that as it may, we cannot help thinking that that section of the Temperance Party which bolds these views will on con- sideration see that they do not apply to the present case. If we can at once get rid of the public sale of spirits and greatly reduce the alcohol standard in beer, we shall have made it far easier for the Temperance people to convert the nation, if they can, to total abstinence.
If we face the facts sincerely, we cannot doubt that the greatest obstacle to the teetotalers getting their way has always been the organized trade in liquor. The actual consumers of alcohol have been curiously indifferent to what the brewers would call their own interests. When there are plenty of facilities for them to drink, they drink ; but when those facilities are interfered with, or even withdrawn, they make little or no protest. An organized trade, how- ever, which is out to protect its money, capital, and interest proves how much stronger and more efficient is the desire for profit than the desire for drink. With the disappear- ance of the trade will disappear the greatest and by far the most efficient enemy of the teetotaler. The trade fight with the desperate feeling : "We are in danger of being utterly ruined." The man who wants his glass has no such feeling. Indeed, the citadel of his opposition is always in danger of being betrayed by the thought : "Perhaps after all I should do better if I were not allowed to spend so much at the public-house. They get a lot more out of me than they ought every week."
The greatest obstacle of all is the one which we have not yet dealt with directly—i.e., the resistance of the trade itself. But even here the resistance has been greatly exaggerated. We believe that the trade, unless they are much blinder to their own interests than we suppose, though they may make a good many verbal protests, as is most natural when a bargain is in contemplation, will show little real inclination to oppose any just scheme for Government
purchase. Indeed, if they are wise they will jump at it, for it is certain that they will never again get so good. a chance as they have now of saving themselves from rum. They must realize that even if this particular scheme is defeated, the whole drift of modern legislation is in the direction of cutting down the consumption of alcohol—as, of course, is also the whole tendency of our social habits. Theirs is a wasting security if ever there were one. To begin with, the present movement, even if it should fall very far short of our special hopes, is not going to end in nothing but talk. In any case, it must cause a consider- able reduction in the consumption of spirits, and even of beer. But if half-measures are adopted, and we merely get further taxation and further restrictions, there will be no compensation either for the manufacturers or the retailers of liquor. Thus the defeat of a purchase scheme such as we urge may well mean that the margin of profit may be cut away from the trade, and cut away without any sort of compensation. The instruments will be the restriction of hours, fresh taxation, and those voluntary abstentions which are beginning throughout the country on a very large scale. The trade may thus be left not only without dividends, but without any claim to pecuniary aid. They will wither away under a gradual fire of restrictions.
We have not the least desire to threaten or in any way to bully the trade. On the contrary, as we have always said, we desire that they should have fair and just compensa- tion; but we do feel very strongly that if they let matters drift, and do not seize the golden opportunity that is now offered to them of getting out of a doomed business, they will show extraordinary unwisdom. If, on the other hand, they come forward frankly, and express their willingness to make a certain amount of sacrifice and cut a certain amount of loss, the nation is just in the mood to close a fair bargain. We are still thinking in millions and inclined for big acts. When the war is over and for many years to come a very different mood is likely to prevail in the country and in Parliament. We shall necessarily adopt the cheese-paring line, as we did after the Napoleonic Wars.
Politically and on the party side we are glad to think that there is no obstacle to the scheme of Government purchase. We feel quite sure that the Unionist Party, though they will desire to seejustice done to the trade, will never dream of offering any opposition to such a proposal. They will take the patriotic line that they have always taken—viz., that the Government are responsible, and that if they (the Opposition) are told that such-and-such a measure is necessary for the proper and efficient prosecution of the war, they will acquiesce, provided, of course, that there is no violation of the essential rights of the people. But purchase will certainly not involve that. At the same time, the more far-seeing Unionists will, we believe, be only too thankful to have the liquor question out of the way. To speak plainly, it must always have been a source of anxiety to our leaders. There has always been a danger of some dispute over liquor causing a very serious breach in the Unionist Party. Just as the Liberal Party have never really escaped the trade influence, though that influence has been exerted very privately, nay, almost secretly, so the Unionist Party have always contained a very influential Temperance section. If the sale of intoxicants is placed in the hands of the State, Unionists will feel free of what may not unfairly be called a political incubus.
All things, then, point the way to a Government purchase scheme, based on the need for increasing the output of the munitions of war—for we must never forget that that is the essential aim. What is wanted to carry
the matter through is courage and self-confidence. If the Government fail in these respects and submit to failure, their condition will, in our opinion, be a very dangerous one. They have put their hand to the plough, and the country expects big results and quick results. If after all that has happened we get nothing but some mild and inefficient half-measure, the nation as a whole will take it very bitterly. They will ask what the Government mean by upsetting men's minds and deflecting them from the prosecution of the war in order to do not a big but a paltry thing. To put the matter plainly, the Government can only justify their action during the past month by a big measure and a strong measure such as purchase. For it all to end in nothing but scheme for small beer would make them a laughing-stock. They dare not tell the world that, when they saw the nation forfeiting its claim for industrial efficiency in the matter of war material through drink, they recognized the evil and tried to stop it, but that in the end they could do nothing because they were afraid of the trade. What we hope they will have the courage to say is that. having found the evil, they are determined to have an absolutely free hand in dealing with it. But the only way to get a free hand is through State ownership ; and State ownership means a just and reasonable scheme of purchase. Therefore purchase holds the field.
Previous page
