PROHIBITION PARTY’S FUNDS

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3360, 28 October 1911, Page 5

PROHIBITION PARTY’S FUNDS

ARE THERE ANY “PAID ORATORS?”

A SLANDER REFUTED.

HOW THE MONEY IS BEINC SPENT

Never in the history of the human race has there been a great reform movement which has not at times been held lip to suspicion and suggestion, and any party advocating a public reform and appealing for the public’s money to support that reform is. naturally jealous of the reputation of the organisation and the integrity and disinterestedness of its leaders and teachers. Like all other movements, the Prohibition Party has been subjected to such attacks from .its opponents, and one frequently hears allusions to ‘'paid orators’’ and suggestions that some of its leaders are “FEATHERING THEIR NEST,” or “making a good thing at the game.” But these have been refuted with promptitude, candour, and vigour quite early in the present campaign. Our first visitor, Mrs. Barton, came all the way from Glasgow for the benefit of her health and humanity, and with a message from that sober city to the people of Gisborne. She felt constrained to remove any suspicion by announcing that she was a voluntary worker in the vineyard. Then the Rev. R. B. S. Hammond arrived from Sydney to explain how it was the prohibition cause received such a dreadful set-back at the last election in New South Wales. He anticipated the suggestion that he was Da id to come by stating that he had been offered a princely salary but would not take it, and explained in charming language that he was

ONLY A POOR PARSON who had saved up for his triennial holiday in New Zealand, and*that he had refused to take a penny. Mrs. Harrison Lee-Cbwie, whose fiery eloquence even the showery night cordd not quench, has just definitely denied being a paid lecturer, and so far from receiving payment her greatest regret was that she could not contribute liberally to the party’s funds. Mr. _A. S. Adams, of Dunedin, the brilliant barrister, who has been for many years one of the strongest spirits in the prohibition party, spent many years of selfsacrifice and voluntary labour before the Government, on behalf of the people, granted him A COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE OF £369 out of the unauthorised expenditure for his assistance in drafting a New Licensing Bill, and Mr. Adams’ die nee since Is an eloquent proof of his n itural shyness to boast of what he bad done for the country, a view which 's suppoited by the disinclination of the Government to discuss the payment. In fact one does not know of a single paid worker in the prohibition party, and has never been able to find one, who admits receiving a salary; albeit, there may be an occasional exponent of the cause who is similarly placed to the Government servant who, on receiving a notification that in future his travelling expenses would lie limited to 30s per diem, wrote back that be was WILLING TO FOREGO HIS SALARY providing his “travelling expenses” were not interfered with. But if there are any doubters who will not accept, in the right spirit, the assurances of the prohibition orators who have recently visited us that they received nothing for their services, the Treasurer of the local No-License League will, no doubt, he only too pleased to show them the butts of* the paity’s cheque-book, because it is undoubtedly the duty of the prohibition party to court the utmost publicity as to how it spends its funds. Certainly no reform m this country lias received such a widespread and substantial support from the general public as the prohibition cause. From the farthest and most vitied sources a steady stream flows into the coffers of the party. From the tl.icefigure cheques of the wealthy to the humble, but lVever despised, coppers of the band-of-hope children, this constant stream pour/; in the . contributions to the cause. / Elections may come and elections may go, but, like Tennyson’s, this brook'goes on for ever. The door-to-door canvasser and the street-corner meeting, the theatre and the church, the hall and the Sunday-school, all produce their welcome showers of copper, silver, and gold, and all add to the volume of the stream. It is easy to trace the source and mark its swelling volume, but 1 like some other rivers in this country, it suddenly

DISAPPEARS FROM HUMAN SIGHT,

and has no visible outlet. It is never seen again, and no one knows whence its howness. There is no other movement, posing as a real reform, receiving thousands from public contributions, which does not produce a balance-sheet to its members and subscribers. When General Booth was challenged on this very question—the right of the public to know how public donations are, handled —lie promptly placed the finances of the Salvation Army in the hands of a Trust and issued an audited balancesheet. Have the No-License party ever shown where ' the money so generally subscribed bv the public last election went to? Yet, like Oliver Twist; they ever ask for more. Our churches show to their members how their offertories and contributions are disposed of. Reform movements like the Single-tax and Socialism, charitable organisations like blind-institutes, orphanages, and creches, and every other cause which appeals for public support retain the confidence of the people by their readiness to render an audited statement of accounts to their subscribers. But the great prohibition movement gives away no information ; it receives everything and explains nothing. It has no salaried orators or paid lecturers—their liquid flood of watery eloquence flows FREELY AND WITHOUT PRICE to everyone that thirsteth. The workers are all voluntary and unremimerated The periodical publications are paid for in advance by the philanthropic business men who adveitise in them. Where, then, does the money go? ' It would not do for one moment to suggest that the funds of the paity aie improperly spent or that the executive officers of the party abuse the confidence placed in them. Most of the voluntary workers and enthusiasts are honestly sincere in their convictions and content to be blind and trustful followers of their leaders with that unquestioning faith which passetli human suspicion and pays without wanting to see. But what of the subscribing public? The thrifty housewife who gives to the pestiferous canvasser, the casual man who blows into the meeting and gives his sixpence, or the business man

who gives his cheque for business reasons. They see AN ENORMOUS SUM DISAPPEARING into the war-chests of the wowsers, but can never find out what becomes of it, and every orator, canvasser, and worker. for the cause indignantly denies ever having received a penny of it. Where, then, does the money go? Any party which sets out to reform humanity by means of public donations should, without being asked, give to its subscribers a full and detailed account of where the money goes in carrying out the reform, and a party which neglects to do this forfeits all claim to public sympathy, confidence, or support.—7.