THE COMPENSATION ACT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 164, 12 July 1892, Page 8

THE COMPENSATION ACT.

(To the Editor.)

g IR) _In introducing the Compensation to Licensed Victuallers Bill, Mr Lawry said he had reason to believe that it met with the approval of his constituents,, his apparent reason being, silence giving consent. While ib is quite true that Mr Lawry had publicly stated his approval of giving compensation, he is nob warranted in surmising the electorate's approval of that position because of his election. Mr Lawry had my support and chat of hundreds of electors who, if this had been the tecb question, would have sougat out a candidate more in accord with their views. On the main issues before the country Mr Lawry was in favour of the main planks ot the Liberal party. The compensation proposal is to be condemned because ib seeks to place "the license so refused to bs renewed, being deemed to be a license annually renewable for a reasonable period, to be determined by the Court in its discretion." Or, in other words, to make a yearly license a perpetual license, except for violation of law. By the way, how few licensed victuallers keep the law, evidence of which is found in the first cases on Monday mornings, the lit bars after the hours of closing, etc. Mr Lawry recognised the importance of this point—of making the license a perpetual thing—so much, that he offered to strike out the clause compelling local bodies to pay one half of the fees derived from licenses, to this compensation fund. Some one, I forget who, eaid the Bill was really a Licensed Victuallers' Asaurance Bill. If that is intended, and I should say such a Society would be useful to the trade, let the trade form it, and registor it under the Friendly Societies Act; to such a method none could object. Bub for our New Zealand Parliament to eeek to make a law in direct opposition to the decisions of the best legal opinions of the Anglo-Saxon world will never meet with public approbation, if once the people are made acquainted with the whole legal facts of the case. The compensation battle fought in Great Britain in 1888 and 1890 should have settled the question, especially in colonies co free from vested rights and old customs as we are. The Lord Chief Justice of England said : '•In one sense*—and no lawyer on either side of the House of Commons would venture to question it—there was no vested interest in the trade. It had been tested again and again, and laid down that the discretion of the licensing magistrates was abaolute. Even if, without giving any reasons, and in a capricious spirit, the magistrates refused to grant a license, there was absolutely no power to over - rule their decisions. Therefore, in Bbricb law, there was no vested interest in the trade." As ono of the members of the House of Commons pointedly said : "No compensation ought in any case to be given for the extinction of a privileged monopoly at the end of the time for which the privilege has been granted, and for which nothing has been paid. Monopolies bar all claim for compensation, since they already confer what is equivalent to compensation in the advantage given by the monopoly. The position of the holder of a publican's license is clear enough—he has special profits from the license which restricts competition, while he risks the monopoly being withdrawn." Mr Lawry's Bill ought; to place the publicans in the position Mr Ritchie sought to place them when in the House of Commons he said: "Placing you (licensed victuallers) as we do, in a stronger position for resisting attack, we call on you to pay for the improved position that we have given you." Naturally enough, the publicans seek to make their position stronger, knowing as they do that the progrees of humanity will not permit the common sale of alcoholic poisoa to stop its onward march..—l am', etc, *f R; 3?EfeioH. Remuera, July 11th, 1892.