The Press. MONDAY, JULY 22, 1895. THE LICENSING ACT.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9163, 22 July 1895, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, JULY 22, 1895. THE LICENSING ACT.

After carefully considering his judgment in the Sunday trading cases, Mr. Bishop, S.M., gave his decision on Saturday. For the reasons which he stated, he came to the conclusion that the offence had been proved in each case, and he inflioted the substantial penalty of £10 and costs on each defendant, the licenses being endorsed as a necessary consequence of conviction. We feel bound to say that, in our opinion, the Magistrate came to the right decision in the matter. Even in the cases in which, according to the defence, the informers were asked if they were travellers, it cannot be held that merely asking the formal question and receiving a reply in the affirmative amounts to taking " all reasonable precautions" as specified in the Act. It is also perfectly right, where the offence is proved, that the penalty should be of a deterrent nature, if only as a matter of fairness to those publicans who endeavour to keep within the law as regards the conduct of their houses. While we approve, therefore, of the conviction and the exemplary sentence, we are as much opposed as ever to the means by which the conviction was brought about. It is to be hoped that the young men who took up the rdle of informers in this case will lay to heart the very proper admonition which Mr. Bishop felt it his duty to administer to them. We admit that they were animated solely by an excess of zeal in what they believed to be a good cause, but the principle on which they acted—that the end justifies the means—has, as the learned Magistrate pointed out, proved in all ages vicious and pregnant of evil. It is a good thing, no doubt, that Sunday trading in Christchurch should be checked. It is not a good thing, however, that avowedly religious young men to accomplish this object should set traps for their neighbours, baiting those traps with a lie in action, if not a lie in words. We hope that both they and their spiritual advisers will, on reflection, see that the good that they may do in checking Sundaytrading is far outweighed by the harm which they do in bringing religion into contempt. It is right that the law should be enforced, but let us see if there is not some better way than this of enforcing it. A correspondent writing to us a few days ago made what seems a very reasonable suggestion, viz., that the Government should make use of the powers conferred on them by the Licensing Act, 1881, and appoint some suitable persons to be Inspectors of licensed premises. At present, as far as we know, the only inspectors are the police officers, every one of whom not belpw the grade of a sergeant is ex officio an Inspector. As our correspondent pointed out, it might greatly help the proper administration of the Acts if licensed houses were subject to inspection by non-official persons interested only in having the liquor trade conducted decently and in strict accordance with law. There could be no objection to some of these In-

spectors being chosen from amongst t__i.se who hold tolerably strong views as to the inexpediency''of consuming alcoholic liquors ev6n in strict moderation. We could not admit that it would be either fair or expedient to appoint hare-brained enthusiasts, with distorted mental vision, such as Mr. Tom Taylor or Eev. F. W. Isitt, as Inspectors. But a man can be a teetotaller without exhibiting all the vices as well as the virtues of the old Eoman Catholic inquisitors. The clauses of the Licensing Act, ISBI, relating to Inspectors and their powers are sections 176 and the following sections. It will be seen that their powers are tolerably full, and it is evident that if the Government would appoint efficient Inspectors under these sections, many of the complaints against licensees for continual breaches of the law would soon cease. There is no doubt that the respectable portion of the publicans would be very glad to see the law enforced. When they break the law it is only because they are forced into doing so by the competition of the less respectable of their rivals in the trade. In connection with the subject of Sunday-trading, it is well worthy of discussion whether in the next amendment of the Licensing Act the bond fide traveller clauses should not be swept away. Why should the bona fide traveller whose need is beer be at a greater advantage than the bona fide traveller whose need is a pair of boots or a loaf of bread? As the law now is, the bootmaker who should sell a pair of boots or the baker who should sell a loaf on a Sunday or a Thursday afternoon is a criminal who can be most effectually punished by the law. He can make no exception in the case of a bona fide traveller however badly shod or ill-fed. But the bona fide traveller who is thirsty and who desires to appease his thirst with something alcoholic, can insist on getting his wants supplied either on Thursday afternoon or Sunday, though if he wanted tea or coffee he would have to go without. The only alternative to the public house is the street pump. The bond fide traveller himself is andndividual who would not be grudged his privileges much if they were confined to him. But unfortunately the bona fide traveller is so far objectionable that very often he travels simply to acquire a statutory right to assuage his thirst for alcohol. Such a traveller is hardly a bona, fide traveller in fact though he maybe so in law. Worse still, he. has many imitators. There are many who masquerade as bond fide travellers simply to get the right to drink. They are of all sorts, from the godly youths who leave the prayer meeting for the publichouse with an empty fruit salts bottle in their pockets, desiring not whiskey but a conviction, to the ungodly men who want alcohol at all hazards for their own stomachs. In the interests of order and moderation it seems to us that Parliament might well say to the liquor trade: You shall have no exceptional privileges on Sundays, and no man must be served with drink in your houses unless he is an actual resident in the house. Let us sweep away all fictions about friei_.cls of boarders or of the landlord, and say that no one but an actual boarder shall order a drink or consume one in a licensed house on a Sunday. There is no great hardship in this. The law should also make it an offence punishable both by fine or imprisonment for the publican or any of his servants to serve drink whether for money or gratuitously to any one but a boarder, and the person either buying or consuming a drink, whether he has paid for it or not —not being an actual boarder— should also be punishable with fine and imprisonment. If the law were amended in accordance with these suggestions, the publican who really. wants to observe the law could do so without feeling that his rivals were getting money which he might get, and the law-breaking publican would feel that conviction would be so easy that it would be better to forego the unlawful trade and take a rest like other people.