The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1892.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIII, Issue 253, 22 October 1892, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1892.

For the causa that laoks assistance For tho wrong that nooda reiittanct, For the futurs in the distance. And the good that ire can do.

A Local Option Bill introduced into the New South Wales Parliament, aims at a radical change in the law that controls the liquor traffic of that colony The desire ot its promoters is to legalise local prohibition, with the obvious intention of gradually pre" paring the public for the general application of the repressive principle. Each licensing district would be, not^ as at present, a mere municipalitj or ward, but a parliamentary electorate. The right to vote would not be confined to the ratepayers, but would extend to the whole body of Parliamentary electors. The matterß submitted to the vote would be (i) that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited; (2) that the number of licenses should be reduced to a specified number, which reduction would not be less than one tenth ; and (3) that no new licenses be granted, The decision arrived at would be binding upon the district for the next five years.

It will be seen at once that if the first resolution received the sanction of the majority of electors every licensed house within the district would be closed. This in itself would involve serious consequences, for a large amount of properly would depreciate immensely in value, and a considerable number of persons who had invested capital would be absolutely ruined. But the proposed measure goes still further. The prohibition would apply equally to the wholesale dealer, brewer and winemaker, as to the licensed victualler. The barest majority, at an election conducted under circumstances of great excitement, might, therefore, in one particular district, suppress the liquor traffic in all its branches, while in other parts of the colony it was not interefered with.

It is obvious that if such a crude measure could be passed into law its application would be most inequitable. Prohibition would be enforced in an electorate, not because its liquor traffic was carried on under reprehensible conditions, but because the prohibitionists within its boundaries could command a majority. The principles they hold do not, when carried out to their legitimate conclusion, admit of any exceptions. If in every case absolute prohibition is superior to any system that admits of moderate drinking, then there can be no conceivable case in which prohibitionists would be justified, if the opportunity is afforded them, in stopping short of total suppression of the liquor traffic in every shape and form. The New South Wales vigneron, who depended for his livelihood upon the produce of his vineyard, would suffer equally with the retail dealer. The curious spectacle would occasionally be witnessed of prohibition being enforced in a district where the liquor traffic had hitherto been excellently regulated, while in a neighbouring district in which there existed ground for serious complaint, the trade might continue to flourish.

We have, on various occasions, expressed our conviction that prohibition would not. work well iv the colonies, even if the people could be induced to make the experiment.] This, we believe, is the view held by most persons who have given serious consideration to the subject. Indeed, the ground on which it is frequently advocated is not because of its adaptability to local exigencies, but chiefly for the reason that it has been adopted by some American States. But, without entering upon the much disputed question as to whether the results that have followed prohibition are satisfactory or disappointing, we think few will deny that, so far as the colonies are concerned, such a measure is far ahead of the times. The following remarks from an Australian journal are to the point:— " In matters of this kind it is a grave mistake to legislate far in advance of the opinion and feeling of the com munity, and to attempt by force of law to destroy the inclinations or change the habits of the mass of the

people. The result ofsucb attempts is to set the mass of the people and the law in antagonism, to lead to evasion of the law, to aggravate in some senses the evils the law is intended to remove by covering up their existence (which will not cease) with the unhealthy law of secrecy, by causing contempt for the law when it is defeated and exasperation when it is enforced."

We were informed by cable from Sydney a few days ago that the House had affirmed the principle of compensation by a majority of 47 to 23. This division was not, of course, conclusive, but it expressed in a significant manner the spirit that animates the New South Wales Parliament, and shows clearly that the measure has no chance of passing unless the principle of compensation is recognised. On this point, the Sydney journal from which we previously quoted observes :•—

" The question of compensation does not stand here on precisely the same level as that on which it stands in England. The holder of a license is here entitled by express statutory provisions, subject to certain conditions, to obtain a certificate authorising the renewal oi his license when its term expires, and this certificate of renewal can only be refused under certain conditions specified by the Act. Thus a licensee who has complied with the specified conditions, and in cases where it is not proved that this application for a renewal has been vitiated under the Act, has rights of which, in accordance with the usual if not the invariable rule of procedure, he cannot be deprived, even by the Legislature, without compensation in some form."

The law, as above defined, differs from the New Zealand law, which has followed the English precedent of granting licenses only from year to year. It is evident that the New South Wales Parliament is unwilling to commit itself to the drastic measure urged upon it by the extreme section of the teetotal party. Even such a limited instalment of prohibition as the Bill provides for would be hampered with conditions that would make it practically inoperative. Prohibitionists are fiercely opposed to compensation, and would probably prefer the existing law rather than one that recognised formally the claims of publicans to be recouped for losses sustained by closing their places' of business. As the Bill in its present form is unacceptable to both parties, it will probably be quietly dropped.