'Mystery' Liquor

Bill

All Fiji Churches Join In Strong Protest

From Our Own Correspondent

Suva, Nov. 3.

rE heads of the Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Seventh Day Adventist Churches, with those of the London Missionary So ciety and the Assemblies of God—every Christian denomination represented in Fiji—are signatories to a formidable petition which protests vigorously against the controversial Liquor Bill. The Bill proposes to remove every one of the pre sent liquor restrictions on the Indians, while maintaining the permit-system for the Fijians.

It is the first time in Fiji’s history that every denomination, Protestant and Catholic, has joined in a single, united move.

In their petition, the Church leaders spare no one’s feelings. They ask the Legislative Council to scrap the Liquor Bill and to maintain the status quo. If this course is not adopted, they ask that the plan for removing the Indian re strictions be dropped. If this second re quest should also fail, they ask that the Bill be referred to a select or special committee of the Legislative Council, The widespread fear that the Bill, if it is passed, will open the door to a vast, organised and ruthless Indian bootlegging racket throughout the “dry” Fijian villages finds full expression in the petition.

The petitioners “find it difficult to understand what reasons have dictated

such a policy which, in their opinion, strikes at the very root of the spirit of the Deed of Cession, which quite recently the Legislative Council of Fiji unanim ously agreed should be upheld in the interests of the native Fijians.

“Those who know of the dangers of illicit traffic in liquor in the Colony to day realise the still further adverse effect of the proposed legislation upon the Fijians,” the petition continues,

Indian Bootleg Menace

“'VTO police force in the Colony could ll possibly control the illicit traffic in liquor by the Indians, nor could the police cope with the lawlessness that will arise if the Bill becomes law, and it is not an exaggeration to say that such lawlessness will result in grievous and permanent harm to the Fijian race.”

Quoting a report in the “Fiji Times” of March 7, in which it was stated that the former Governor (Sir Alexander Grantham) had said that the Council of Chiefs had approved the Bill by an over whelming majority, the petitioners state that this report took them by surprise.

They had been informed some weeks earlier that the Bill, as a Bill, had never been discussed by the Council of Chiefs, but that the point submitted to the Chiefs merely dealt with the question of whether it was advisable or not to retain the permit system governing the con sumption of liquor by Fijians.

In his address at the opening of the Legislative Council, on October 31, the Acting-Governor (Mr. J. F. Nicoll) said: “When considering this matter (the Liquor Bill) I would ask honourable mem bers to bear in mind that there is a problem to be faced, and that if the pre sent proposals of the Government are not acceptable, I hope members will put for ward alternative proposals aimed at solving this problem.”

“What Problem?”

TO this a majority of the non-Indian public of Fiji are asking: “What problem?”

On the same day, the “Fiji Times” editorially attacked the Bill—not for the first time —and, in regard to the petition, said that “if the Government, in the face of public opinion, forces the Bill through in its present form, the Secretary of State surely cannot ignore this combined plea, which is concerned with the welfare of the Native race and which is so strongly supported.”

Like the petitioners and the public, the paper is at a loss to understand what motive is behind a measure “which seems so unwise and so unnecessary.”

The air of mystery in which the Liquor Bill has been wrapped by cryptic Gov ernment references is doing a great deal to wreck whatever inter-racial cordiality well-meaning, but unpractical official speakers have been able to build up.

The popular idea is that the Govern ment has been pushed into the Liquor Bill, regardless of consequences, by Indian equality-agitators; or that the whole thing ‘is a desperate move for more revenue.

Neither motive could be described as creditable in the circumstances. If there is a worthier reason for the Govern ment’s persistence over the Liquor Bill, the public have not been told about it.

The astonishing statement of a year ago —that the Bill is part of the Govern ment’s policy of “removing racial discrim ination and protecting the Fijian people” —has not been accepted at all.

Liquor Duties Up

PEOPLE who expected that, If the Liquor Bill were pushed through the Legislative Council, the Customs duties on imported beer, spirits and wines would be increased

soon afterwards were jolted when the duties were increased, on the motion of the Controller of Customs, on the first day of the council’s sitting.

The duty on beer was increased by 2d. a bottle, or 1/- a gallon, and the increases on wine and spirits were considerably heavier. The effect of these increases, as well as of increases made simultaneously on tobacco and cigarettes, petrol, drugs and medicines, on the controlled retail prices has not yet been announced.

Comparatively slight cuts were made in the duties on tea, kerosene and tinned milk.