THE VESTED INTEREST QUESTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXI, Issue 5698, 30 June 1902, Page 2

THE VESTED INTEREST QUESTION.

TO^THE EDITOR. Sir,—l notice that Mr A. W. Lane has a letter m your columns bearing the above ( heading, and dated June 18th, m which he ' tries to make out a case for compensation for himself and every other publican m New Zealand. Now, sir, Mr Lane is no doubt aware that the vested interest and compensation question was tested many years ago m the highest Court m England, and that neither m that country nor m this has the vested interest theory ever been upheld m law. So that when he entered the business he must have been aware that he had absolutely no vested interest m the license granted, and therefore no claim whatever for compensation, if at any time he were refused a renewal. He says that the present Licensing Committee, who were elected by a majority of the people, and are therefore the voice of the people, compelled him to re-build or forfeit his license. Well, sir, if he had taken the trouble, he might have found that the present Licensing Committee were elected by less than onefourth of the voters who voted at the local option poll, and that for every one who voted for the Committee, there were two who voted no-license; so much for the voice of the people. Again, sir, both he and the Committee knew that the people had the power to refuse all licenses, and this is not a newly acquired power; they had it before Mr Lane purchased the Somerset, and if he has failed to (mark the trend of the mind of the public m relation to the liquor traffic, he must be blind indeed. He says that the erection of a large building m Ashburton for the purpose of a boardinghouse would be perfect madness. I reply, sir, that the granting. of a license to j a large building erected chiefly fcr the ] sale of intoxicating drink would be worse j than madness—it would be down-right wickedness. He aaks "Why did the Metropolitan Temperance Hotel m Christchurch close its doors ?" The answer is, because of unfair competition with a favoured monopoly; and yet m despite of this unfair competition other hotels that do not sell intoxicating drinks have kept their doors open. He say 3wo have shops enough and rents are low here compared with other towns. Is it not strange then that ho has arranged to build two more shops on the site of the old Somerset. Of ! course, shop rents are low—compared with those of licensed houses. A man, is not j likely to get from £850 to per annum j rent for an old ramshackle like that, which is now moving down Burnett street, excepting it is favoured with a license to sell intoxicants. But, sir, when hotel rents are lower and the twenty to thirty thousand pounds per annum now worse than wasted on drink m Ash burton ia turned into other channels; shop rents will go up. and business generally will be very much more prosperous. Mr Lane has entered into a speculation and taken the risk, and that, no doubt, with his eyes open to both the possibility, and the probability of Nolicense being carried m the near future; and if eventually he finds that he has made a mistake, I think sir, that the great maiority of your readers will agree with me that he has only himself to blame. He says that he will write no more as he prefers to speak to a man to his face. Well, sir, I shall be glad to meet him at his convenience before the Ashburton people m the Oddfellows' Hall and debate this j question, and let the people decide who ! has the best of the argument.—l am, etc,! Anti-Humbug.