THE LICENSING LAW

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 146, 22 June 1899, Page 3

THE LICENSING LAW

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—The recent meetings of the various Licensing Benches have brought to light an unsatisfactory state of affairs caused by the administration of the Licensing Act. One ruling in particular to wit: The filing of evidence against several hotelkeepers for future use, the same evidence not being considered suOicient to convict them of any misdemeanour. Is not this a. scandalous thing und a burlesque on British law and justice? The Committee, a body of men placed in a position of trust, who should be conversant with the law of evidence, wasting their time and that of the applicant listening to the trivial, unsupported evidence of policemen who, as some of their statements disclose, relied largely on their fertile imaginations to convict three or four unfortunate hotelkeepers of breaches of the Licensing Act. The evidence could only be defined as "officious suspicion," and an assumption of guilt on the following flimsy grounds:—Seeing lights, hearing voices, a light in a bar or any part of an hotel after 11 o'clock seems to have the same effect upon some policemen that a red rag has on a bull—botli make a charge. The policeman may be actuated by personal animosity, the bull from natural ferocity. Intelligent people will be able to decide which is the most reprehensible proceeding.

To continue with the evidence: When admitted into the hotel they saw a unmbtt of boarders going to bed, which they at once magnified into wrongdoing, as they assert that some of them shuffled and others scuttled off at the sight of their important selves. These are the statements that the collective wisdom of the Bench ordered to be iiled for future use. In the name of British law and justice, is this allowable? Are they guided by statute law, or unduly exercising discretionary power in the interest of the brewing monopoly? Are the sensible, unprejudiced public of this city going to tamely submit to the continuance of a rotten system which place's a respectable body of men, who compare favourably with any other class of business people, carrying on a legalised business as hotelkeepers, paying heavy lieen. sing fees for the privilege of doing business, leaving them at the mercy of a capricious committee or an officious policeman. No other class of business people are subjected to the same unfair treatment. The Licensing Act or any law which places such undue power in the hands of an individual policeman, or otherwise, is a disgrace to our Statute Book; its existence is an insult to our boasted intelligence, and a travesty on our much-vaunted British justice. The hotelkeepers under the monopoly are simply white slaves, which' is proved by the evidence of one policeman who stated he found he could manage them very well when he had them under the whip*. It is not British law for a policeman to make a ease against any hotelkeeper. His duty is to prevent wrongdoing by the general public, which is represented by those who patronise a hotel as well as the licensee. It would be more consonant with our British sense of fair play if he occasionally jogged the memory of the hotelkeeper of his and their respective positions with regard to the Act. Every British subject is supposed to be innocent until it is proved conclusively that he is guilty. This is not the case under the Auckland regime. I don't wish to lay the blame altogether on policemen; they are only fallible mortals like the people that place them in the position of guardians of the law, and consequently may show favouritism or animosity in dealing with hotelkeepers according to the way his "cat jumps." In my opinion they would not be so ready to make cases against hotelkeepers on such trivial grounds if they were not encouraged or forced by the unreasoning opponents of the liquor business in this city to do so. Could any law be framed more inconsistent than the one which grants a man a license and then subjects him to the surveillance of a man who has the power to show favour or animosity, and whose unsupported evidence might be taken to cause a fine to be inflicted or the cancelling of his license? Why are clubs- exempt from the tender mercies of policemen? They pay only a nominal fee as compared with hotels. They are allowed to sell every day of the week and every hour of the twenty-four that constitute a day. We have our Northern Club, Auckland, Masonic, and Working Men's Clubs. The prohibitionist makes a fanatical howl because 11 o'clock ha-s been granted as the closing hour for hotels, which hour is a much more convenient one for the general public who use them.

The police tried to, show that the increased hour was creating more drunkards, but their figures were shown to bo incorrect. They were only compiled for a short period, and nt a time when there was a ii\'rge influx of strangers who had not left the city, although the Exhibition was closed. It was not a fair criterion to go by. However, their evidence in the main went to show that under 11 o'clock licenses a much better state of things existed. No one asked whether the drunkards came from the hotels or the clubs, where there are greater facilities for getting drunk. If tlie Committee had'refused 11 o'clock,which they threatened to do on account of the supposed misdemeanours of four or five out of a body of (!8 men, they would have inconvenienced 50 sober men for every one drunkard that would have benefited by the 10 o'clock closing. The drunkards In this city are a very small minority of the public who patronise hotels, and an habitual drunkard will get his fill whether the hotels are closed at 10 or 11 o'clock. The earlier hour would certainly be better for the guardians of our laws, and them only.

As the elections are approaching, the importance of the liquor problem becomes daily more important. There are three solutions of the problem: The electors will have to decide between monopoly and tied houses as they exist at present in contravention of the spirit and intention of the present Act. The rectification of this anomalous state of things I have already dealt with and suggested the remedy, vhich could be effected by the brewers themselves granting leases and free trade outside their beer. Their doing so would obviate the necessity for fresh legislation. If they don't they can rely upon it that the electors will not allow the present unsatisfactory state of things to exist much longer. Total prohibition is of course a remedy, and in small communities the vote may be carried; but it is too.drastic a measure, and could not possibly be given effect to in large centres. If carried through the apathy of the moderates at the next election it could never be put in force, because it would rouse up a large section of the public who did not trouble themselves to vote at the last option poll. Being moderate consumers of liquor both in public and private, they ridicule the idea of any vote being carried that would stop them having what they require. The present position of the trade through the monopoly is putting them on their mettle. I have never seen or heard how the prohibitionists propose to make up the loss of revenue if they could stop the importation of alcohol. Have they eve,r realised what effect it would have on the financial position of this colony? They would be the first to howl about fresh taxation. My experience of men who object to other people having a glass of beer or spirits if they wish is that they are either faddists or constitutionally defective, or too mean to indulge in any luxury costing money. No sensible prohibitionist can seriously entertain the idea that they can usher in the millennium, as far as drink Is concerned, even if they carried the vote. They can take the Canadian Premier's ultimatum as applicable to New Zealand. Personally I may say, "I will have my whisky whatever way things go," and in saying so I only voice i the views held by thousands like myself i who take drink in moderation, and in doing 'so find it contributes to their health. It is the apathy of the moderate men that has played into the hands of monopolists and prohibitionists. I would suggest that the moderates form an organisation to check the two extremes and help to direct legislation on this important matter for the benefit of the whole colony. Much better for the prohibitionists to join with the moderates and help to sweep away the present monopoly and put the trade on a more satisfactory footing.

It has been stated lately by writers and speakers that Lord Rosebery uttered the opinion that "If the State did not control the liquor, the liquor would control the State." The latter is very much in evidence in this city; the interests of the brewing monopoly have become so strong that such candidates to whom they accord their support are practically the only ones whose chances of return at the general election are in any way assured. Our freedom is endangered and the security of the hustings is menaced. State control will at once suggest to your readers the Gothenburg system, but I can honestly say I am quite ignorant of the details of it. I have heard of it only by name and as a form of

State control adopted by some countries. My idea of State control was suggested to my' mind through the old age pension being passed as a happy medium between two extremes — mon-

ppoly and prohibition. As the state now takes the lion's share in the wholesale price charged to the consumer in order to make revenue for the State, it might just as well take over the whole business find allocate the retail profits to the payment of old age pensions, which ought to meet with the approval of both the provident and improvident. Tae provident say, "Why

should we be taxed to pay a pension to those who have neglected to provide for their old age?" My suggestion would in all probability prevent the necessity for any further taxation, which ought to relieve their minds in that respect. To the improvident, who in reality create the most j of the wealth accruing from the retail snlo ! of liquor, we would return their own money In the form of a pension, not necessarily the present one. Better for the State to have this wealth than two or three mdi- i yiduals. The great difficulty in adopting ! State control would be the establishment I of a system for carrying on the business j that would prevent the Government from j abusing the power if invested in them The i collective wisdom of the electors should be j able to formulate a plan on a fair and economic basis.

lv conclusion, I sincerely trust that the electors will not allow themselves to be gulled, hoodwinked, or bluffed by political touts or otherwise, but will give this and every other public matter their earnest consideration before recording their votes at the next general election. Let them approach the liquor question in particular with minds unbiassed by unreasoning prejudice, and recollect that we all helped to create its present unsatisfactory condition. I refer more especially to those who take liquor and did not record their vote. Remember the motto, "Fair play is bonny play." The great danger to the fair adjustment of the question is the attitude taken up by the liquorpboblsts. (Shades of Ben Jonson and Daniel Webster forgive me for coining the word, and let me lay the blame on extreme prohibition for my presumption and effort to rival the two dead great word-coiners of the English language). Will anyone suggest a more appropriate name for men who get on the stump at the wharf and indulge in exaggeration, and vituperation to the idiotic extent of calling everyone who takes a glass of beer or sells one murderers and thieves? I can assure them they were prostituting their blatherskiting ability, steeling the minds of their audience against them, and finally murdering their own cause. Let me tell the liquorphobists that if they could carry total prohibition in New Zealand it would have a more disastrous effect in respect to capital than any mis-legislation attributed to the Seddon 'Government. I don't think there would be a capitalist left in the country six months after it came into force. Let them take into consideration the existing state of society with regard to the use of liquor both in public and private, and remember that by depriving these people of beer, wines and spirits, to which they have always been accustomed, and compelling them to drink temperance drinks and tea, would lead to a national disaster. Think of this, electors, carefully before you record your votes at the next election.— I am, etc.,

HECTOR NORMAN SIMSON.