THE TIED-HOUSES BILL.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 11954, 5 August 1904, Page 3

THE TIED-HOUSES BILL.

AN INTERESTING DEBATE. (srEci.it. to "the m£ss.") WELLINGTON. August 3. An nit Test ins: discussion took place in the Legislative Council this afternoon on the Tied Houses Bill, the second reading of which was moved by Mr Rigg, who said that if lh> Government had taken tho tn.u! !e to deal effectively with tho matter hist y..-ir he would not have brought hia B:l! dn«n again. It was not a drastic measuie, inasmuch as it merely carried out tlio exu«:ing law, but tho means us-cd in his Bill to enforce the law might be cmisid. red drasiic. At present there were in the country men engaged in defying tlie 'law. Was i; not time therefore that some lii.a.-nre was introduced so that the l.i w might be enforced? Tlie Act of 13?5 continued the knowledge that there v.is ;in *vil, ainl how much had the 'Til ir.crva.*-vl since then. In Wellington titer-.-. were only six free houses, and in Auek--1; nd tliere were only two. Publican**- suf-f.-ied many hardships due to the tyraniiital methods of th** brewers of the colony. One < f th--*. principal devices to the tenants was the "two rent - ' idea. A heavy reserve iviit wa.i set down to lie paid unless the lict-nsee. took his beer from the landlord brcv.<r. 'I'llen the brewer might exercise a to s,i.y where the liocnsve should obtain l*.is wines and spirits-. What had the brLV.vr done to entitle him to obtain money thti-ug.i the third party? He had every reason to believe that a commission was received by the brewer on other goods. In England it. was obtained on all good.*-) supplied to an hotel. Were we going to allow a considerable section of the community to be robbed in this iv<iy? The brewers held nearly all the publi-<-."i<- in ihe hollow of their hand, and their money was used in all direct ions, and viuioiis means vere adopted to advance their inter-.-ts at the expense of the community. !/x>k at. the Licensing Bill ieceiitlyp.-i.-s-d through the English Parliament. If was the most iniquitous measure ever pu;. through. ,in.l has been passed simply by the ii'.flu«--:ico of ihr- brewrrs. ll was knoun to many that not only had they inllmnrrrl the Brush Government, but t lint they controlled a lame part of Hie British |»r--ss. an 1 in conjunct io.;* with G*-r----'man and i-.:lit .bw> had oullin.d Tiriti.'h p.-iliry. Hence tlio Chinese in Saiitli Africa. The moral was that if there were the some c-i-.i.Ts in Xew Zealand the. wnic results might. l;e looked for. and the question to l>o decided was whether the Trade was paining the fame inflmnee in New Zealand as it had in Great Britain. Personally, he believed it was. and considered the Licensing Bid introduced by the Government last, ses-sion as an attempt to do a, service to the Trade. What had the Trade done for the Government aa representing tlie Liberal party? It had simply gone for its own interests, and its own pockets. Two clans.*** were introduced into the Bill that had done a great deal of harm to the Liberal party. The first was Clause 9. and it was so stupid that he was at a 1 osts to conceive how any Government possessing any knowledge of human natute* could put such a proposal forward. It was a message to the moderate drinking party that if it. cast its vote against the Trade its liquor would be stopped altogether Tlio result would simply be to harden people to vole no license. If Clause 9 was bad, ClaiM-e 11 was worse, and it made a blow at the powers of self-govern-ment by the people. It said tliTit the people were not capable of electing a committee for the administration of the licensing law. It was an insult to the democracy of the colony. If tliere was a sincere desire on tho part of anybody to do good for the Trade, lie suggested that it- should 1 c in the direction of getting the Government to pur an end of tied house.*-", and to add to the issues before the people at the ballot box, whether licenses should not be increased. He concluded by stating that he was a believer in the niunicipalLsation of the traffic. The Hon. Mr Bolt said he had no hesitation in giving hir support to the Bill. Tho Tied House evil prevailed over twothird.*, of the colony. There, had been open and flagrant evasion of the Act of 1895. Under that Act it was undoubtedly the intention of the Government lhat there riinuld be no tied houses. It was provided that thei" s-houhi be no attempt to bind tenants to take beer from any person. or body of jvenon**, but the brewer had found a n.e.mr of evading the law by of the double rent principle, and Parliament should not tolerate it. He knew of a case in Canterbury where a rent of £1250 was fixed, provided the owning brewer's brer was not taken, and £650 if it was. The first thing a publican was asked to do by a brewer was to connive at an evasion of the law. He believed in municipal control as a remedy for the whole Question. The Hon. Col. Pitt said that, as* the representative of the Government, he feltbound to say a. few words. He was op-pes-ed to t-he, Bill, not because he was a believer in tied houses, but lvecausothe measure before them for prevention was too drastic. Ho admitted that there had been set up a Fuecersful evasion of the Act of 1895 in its provision dealing with tied houses. The double-rent, for instance, was an evasion, ll would be very difficult, however, to lay down prohibitions in regard to the conditions of leases. Tiie Government intended to take .'t-.-pr- in this direction of preventing evasion. Tl was getting th<* best possible advice from its law draftsmen. Th.-* Government'.s policy was oppct d to tied houses. The Hon. Mr .Scotland wanted to know why the brewer couid not enter into a contract with a tenant without being interfered with. The tenant, had his eyes ojv>u, and w;is not ibliged to make a deal. He believed it was a good thing that theiv> were tied houses, and considered lhat if they were done .-ac.ir with there would arise a lot of wretched little drinking shop.*-, where there would be no guarantee of good liquor being oht-iinnhle. Mr T'womev .""aid the question of rv.i.*-ion had been before tlie Supremo Court, and had been there 'declared not. to exist. ' He had no objection to the manner in which Mr Rigg had introduced the Bill. (Mr Rigg:- "It. didn't matter if you had.") Mr Twomey con!inning, said there was no request for the Bill, and it had been proved mat tin re was no evil. Why should they interfere with the business relations that existed in a legal trade? Auckland had always been held up as a frightful example in regard to tied houses, nut there Mas no. place where there were belter bote!.*-*, or they were better conducted. H* thought the goodwill business was the greatest evil in connection with the hotel busin*-:.**-. Licensees had ti> pay such high pries for the goodwill that they had to r=sort to had method* to recoup themselves l . If the Government could find sm.ie man*, of killing the goodwill put of a sil- Ik* would vote for it. Clause 9 of las;, year's Rill he thought was logical and would put things in their proper light. The Rill now before the Council war. meant for th<* wholesale confiscation of property. He war. in sympathy with th* of the. 1 raffle. The Hon. Mr Fr.iser pi id lie -would vote for the Bill. Tlt* liquor monopoly was eating th*-- hear: out of th" country. The Hon. Mr Lee-Smith said the hiewers d.d nor #«-.* m '•» In v.*. k.irn-ed one singi-le.-fon by •"xperimce. They must know tint the. drastic prohibitionist-, v.-re not th*» only peop!-* attacking thfm, but that these wvr*> being assisted by the moder.ito drinkers. Public opinion" had r.----n disgusted at the way in which some in the trade had carried on their business. In many c.if-~s the-e p* op'.e wet:' spinning a tope to hang tiiemselve.-i'with. If th? present

system, with if* possibilities of combination for harm, was allowed to continue, it would be of extreme danger lo the country. Mr Rigg, in reply, said the provision to deal wiih the lied house evil brought, down by the Government hutt year was uiterlv inadequate. They must go to the root of the evil- In regard to municipalisation, there were two ways of action—one by straight out purchase, and one by working along tlie lines of llie no-liccn**e agitation. The latter meant no compensation, and would probably commend itself to the country. The'second reading of ihe Bill was refused by 19 votes to 8.