ANOTHER LIQUOR BILL.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXVI, Issue 1318, 25 July 1899, Page 3

ANOTHER LIQUOR BILL.

In the House of Representatives, on Friday afternoon, Mr Gilfedder moved the second reading of the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act Amendment Act 1895 Amendment Bill. He explained that it purposed to make certain necessary alterations in the existing laws on the subject. When the boundaries of the Clutha electorate were altered one hotel was included, and this prevented Clutha from being de facto a Prohibition district within the meaning of the law. The principal Act had made no provision for such circumstances, which had not been contemplated at the time the measure was passed. Thus, at the coming General Election the Clutha people would be debarred from voting on the question of restoration of licenses in the Clutha. This provision applied only to a Prohibition district, which Clutha was not, seeing that it contained one hotel, which the Representation Commissioners in 1896 had included in the district — namely, at Pukerau. The amendment, he explained, made no alteration in the decision by a three-fifths majority. In conclusion, he emphatically denied that anyone in Christchurch had asked him to introduce the bill. — The Premier said the Government were not responsible for the crass stupidity of the Representation Commissioners, who could have . included the necessary population in the Clutha district without taking the portion in which this hotel was situated. If they intended to prevent Clutha from being egally a Prohibition district they had achieved their object, and they were equally successful if they desired to retain the publichouse in order to defy the law. Owing to the inclusion of this little angular piece of country with the hotel, around which a few people were settled, a state of things had been created for which the principal Act made no provision. In a Prohibition district the electors would have the right every three years to reopen the question of license I or no license, but the action of the Representation Commissioners in including the hotel defeated this privilege. Both parties were agreed that an injustice had been done, and it was therefore the duty of Parliament to give redress. If the people of the Clutha closed or bought out the hotel they would be enabled to vote licence or no license reduction, or increase in the number of licensed houses, but as it was no vote could be taken on the question of restoration of licenses. What was required was to enable the electors to decide by a straight vote in favour of restoration or further Prohibition. No doubt if such a state of things as now existed had been anticipated when the principal Act was passed ample provision would have been made to meet the case. He therefore hoped that the House would pass the second reading, leaving the details to be considered at a future stage. He would refrain from referring to the main question, but the present case was an example of the folly of entrusting persons who are strangers with the duty of fixing the boundaries. — Mr J. W. Thomson was sure the temperance people would agree that it was only fair that people should have the right to vote for reinstatement as well as prohibition. — Mr Smith looked upon the bill as an insiduous attempt to prevent the people of Clutha carrying out their views on the subject. — MiMeredith thought that in such an important matter the Government should have introduced the bill. If the bill went into committee he believed there would be fifty amendments moved. — Mr Morrison blamed the Commissioners for tacking a hotel on to a prohibition district. In the interests of morality the sooner licenses were restored to Glutha the better. There had been so much lying, hypocrisy and perjury in Clutha since prohibition had been carried that the sooner the law was altered the better. He asked prohibition members if they felt so sure of their position as to support the bill and let the electors of Clutha decide whether they wished prohibition to continue or licenses reinstated. — Mr Piraru said that in the face of the result of the local option poll last taken in Clutha, which was largely in favour of prohibition, it was absurd for the last saeak^r to say that a large majority favoured licenses. If the people of Clutha suffered from disabilities, why did they not petition Parliament to remove these disabilities ? The reason was that they were quite satisfied with the law as it stood at present. He deprecated the language used by the Premier with regard to the Representation Commissioners. The trouble with regard to the Clutha district had arisen through the prohibitionists insisting on a vote being taken over an area, the boundaries of which were coterminous with electoral districts. Special districts should have been declared for taking the local option vote. — Mr Taylor contended that no decent man could get liquor in Balclutha, and he challenged the member for Caversham to give the name of & man who imported liquor into the district in a kerosene tin. He refuted the charge made that sly grog-selling was rampant in the district, and gave evidence showing the great benefit that had resulted from prohibition in the district referred to. — Mr Mills deprecated the strong language made use of by the previous speaker; language that he would not dare to use outside the house. — Mr Kelly objected to the bill on the ground that it appealed to only one district in the colony, and deprecated the attack made on the Boundary Commissioners by the Premier. If the bill got into committee he would test the feeling of the House on the question of holding the local option poll on the day of the general election. — Mr Guinness moved that the bill be read that day Bix months. He supported the animadversion cast upon the Commissioners for the manner in which they had fixed the boundaries of electoral districts. If the bill got into committee no one could say when it would come out. — Mr Morrison replied to the statements made by Mr Taylor reflecting upon his (Mr Morrison's) connection with the Clutha district and referring to the evidence adduced in proof of his statement that prohibition had proved as successful as claimed — Mr Taylor again spoke against the motion —Mr Seddon said that the House had been listening to a speech that was a disgrace to the Legislature. The attitude he took up was to place Clutha in exactly the same position, as far as prohibition was concerned, it was before the boundaries of the electoral district were altered. If members would

approach the subject in a dispassionate manner they could frame a measure that would be workable, and prove a benefit. — The debate was adjourned.