THE LOCAL OPTION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXI, Issue 156, 4 July 1890, Page 4

THE LOCAL OPTION ACT.

(To the Editor.) ] Sir,—Your article in Tuesday's Star reminds mo of Jeremiah's two baskets of fitfe-s. The first part of ib was very good, and the reasons ripe ; the second paro very bad, so bad that ib could not be swallowed. In the former yon denounce the attempt of the Salisbury Government to create a vested interest in the publican's license, and to give him, as a natural consequonco, compensation if the renewal of his license is refused by the Licensing Committee of the County Council elected by the ratepayers. In the latter you denounce as an outrage on the common sense of the public, as a piece of presumption on the part of the extreme section of the teetotallers of this colony, and utterly to be condemned, the provision of the Local Option Bill just) introduced) into the House of Representatives by our Governmenb, in pursuance of a resolution carried lasb session by a considerable majority, which rests on exactly the same grounds as those on which the opponents of Lord Salisbury's measure based their opposition to ib. We intoxicated teebotallers, as you politely us, deny:as Mr Gladstone, Sir Wilfrid LawsoJj, and VY. S. Came did, tbab the publicans have any vested interest; and we copten»), as they contended, tha. he is, and can be entitled to no compensation if the renewal of bis license bo They assert, as we do, thab from the time of Edward HI. to the present day, no compensation to liquor traffickers has ever been recognised by law or admitted in practice; and that ol late years the highest law courts in England and in this colony have over and over again decided that no publican, bowever long he may have enjoyed the monopoly of selling intoxicating drinks, is entitled to any compensation whatever if renewal of his license is refused. They know, as we do, thab in numerous instances (sometimes over 100 in six or eight years in a single town in Great Britain), and in many cases in New Zealand, old licenses have been refused renewal on the simple ground that the licensing authorities did nob bhink them necessary for the public good, and no compensation has ever been been paid. We know thab in our Licensing Act the committees are expressly required to exercise their discretion, and nob to grant any license new, or by way of renewal, unless satisfied thab it is a 4 « necessity." We all know thab the publican does not go into the trade for the public good, and that to call him a publican, if in that sense, is a misnomer; wo know that all the profits go into his pocket and all the losses out of ours, who have to pay for the gaols, lunatic asylums, hospitals, refuges, and other places in which his manufactured articles are stored. The whole of our colonial Acts, since 1873 inclusive, have been based on the above principles, that is, the power of refusing or abolishing licenses, singly or in block, by the will of the ratepayers expressed through elected committees. The only question at present in issue, and the only one raised by the Local Option Act now introduced by the Governmenb, is whether the intermediate bodies shall continue to decide bho question whether any liquor shall be sold in any given district, or the ratepayers personally by direct vote at the ballot box. Last session, the House of Representatives declared thab ib was desirable that a change should be made, and to give the people the direct veto ab the ballot box. If they decline to exercise the veto tho intermediate committees will exercise their discretion as before. Bub this is the only change. No alteration whatever is contemplated in reference to compensation. Thab is left exactly where it is now, and has been ever since the time of Edward 111., in the United Kingdom, to say nothing of the United States, Canada, and all other countries (except one cdlony) in which licensing laws Excuse me pointing oub the error Into which you havo fallen in your remarks on Sections 7 and Bof the new Bill. They have no such operation as you suppose, bub are limited to " special districts," as described in the Act of 1881, and are altogether foreign to the subject of popular veto in ordinary licensing districts.—l am, etc., William Fox. [In respecb of our comment on sections 7 and 8 of the new Bill, we are, of course, quite aware thab tho 6th section of the Licensing Act, 1881, provides that the " districts within or comprising boroughs, ridings of counties, and the road districts aforesaid," are ordinary licensing districts. The remainder are "special licensing districts" (and see section 14). Bub the new Bill is quite clear in its phraseology that sections 7 and 8 are nob confined in fcheir operation to special districts. The term " any district," employed in clause 7, leaves no doubt aboub the intended application of thab and the following clause. And bhis is made the more clear by special districts being expressly referred to in section 9, which lasb mentioned section (9), as we stated in our article, is limited to special districts.—Ed. E.S.]