Cromwell Argus AND NORTHERN GOLDFIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, July 5th, 1898.

Cromwell Argus, Volume XXX, Issue 1521, 5 July 1898, Page 4

Cromwell Argus AND NORTHERN GOLDFIELDS GAZETTE. Cromwell: Tuesday, July sth, 1898.

We note with satisfaction that the member for Wakatipu has lost no time in moving in the matter of the recent deadlock in the Wakatipu Licensing Committee, occasioned, through the refusal of the Chairman, Mr M'Carthy, to consent to the issue of conditional licenses for spots' gatherings. Mr Fraser has aiven notice that he wiU ask the Government the question : whether they are prepared to alter the existing law which gives the Chairman the power of veto in the case of conditional licenses. Our readers will doubtless remember the circumstances which led up to the deadlock referred to. On the occasion of the recent St. Patrick Day's sports at Queenstown, an application for a conditional license to sell liquors at that particular gathering, was refused by the Chairman of the committee. It is needless, indeed quite unnecessary, for us to recapitulate the reasons set forth by the Chairman for this refusal —they are woefully inadequate, in our opinion, to warrant his setting aside the 9pirit and intentions of the local option clauses of the .Licensing Act —it ia sufficient to say that, taking advantage of section 20 ».f the Alcoholic Liquors' Sale Control Act, and a Supreme Court judgment given under that section, he did refuse —albeit he need not have done so had he wished, neither the Statute nor the Supreme Court judgment making it mandatory upon him to so do. The section in question reads as follows : " All the powers by the Licensing Act conferred upon the Chairman or any two members of a licensing committee to deal wi'h licenses, shall be exercised by such Chairman and two members jointly, and not separately." To our mind, this section was never intended by our legislators to give the power of veto to the statutory officer of the committee, but was intended simply to join the Chairman, with two members of the committee, thus constituting, as it were, a sub-committee of three, of which any two would be a majority. But, like many others of our laws, the diaughting of this particular section is loose, and the courts have read ihe wording of it literally, with above result. It is in order then to remove from the Chairman this power of veto that the member for Wakatipu is questioning the Government with a view to amending legislation. Up to the present, the full significance of the powers conferred upon the Chairman of a licensing committee by this particular section appears hardly to be grasped, even by the committee. The question now at issue affects only the grant of conditional licenses ; but the application of the section takes much wider ground when thoroughly looked into. It affects the granting of certain licenses besides conditional licenses, and this being the case the necessity tor prompt amending legislition becomes simply imperative. In proof of this assertion, we point to section 90 of the Licensing Act of 1881, which deals with the temporary transfer in case of the sale of licensed premises ; section 95, which provides for the transfer of a license where the licensee deserts the premises or refuses or neglects to transfer the license when justly required to do po ; se-ition 99, which has reference to unking provision for carrying on of a license in case of the death of a licensee ; section 101, which protects a license in case of insolvency of a licensee ; section 104, -a Inch safeguards a license in case of lunacy ct a licensee ; section 100, which nuthouses the grant of a duplicate license Hi the event of the loss of the original

document ; section 107, which authorises the grant of a temporary license in case of an accident to premises by lire, etc. Under all these sections in the 1881 Act, power was given to any two members of the committee to grant applications thereunder if they saw tit. The power is permissive not mandatory be it noted, but now the power is taken away from any two such members by section 20 of The Amending Act of 1895, and the Chairman must concur. In every one of the cases cited by us the Chairman of a licensing committee can refuse to grant, even if the entire committee is against him. To say that it is unlikely that any Chairman -would refuse is not the question ; ho can refuse if he so wills, and what has occurred in the case of conditional license grants is just as likely to occur in the case of any of the above instances. Nobody would have believed six months ago that Mr M'Cakthy would have set himself against the entire elective body of the Wakatipu committee ; yet he did. And what has occurred in the case of conditional license grants can occur in these other cases. Boch the public and the committee of the Wakatipu have been told by the Minister of Justice that he cannot interfere with a statutory officer, and the same answer would be forthcoming were the Chairman of any licensing committee to exercise his right of veto under the sections quoted by us. We pen these remarks in order to accentuate the urgency and importance of amending legislation, which will restore to the public the full benefits of local option. As the law - stands at present, any licensed house, if it were found necessary to make application on behalf thereof, under any one of the sections referred to, is subject to the vagaries or caprice of the Chairman of the licensing committee in the particular district to which the premises belong. And given a Chairman with a strongly pronounced prohibitionist bias, together with the pertinacity of purpose displayed by Mr M'Cakthy, and the result would be : a practical illustration of such Chairman's powers ; the utter helplessness ef the elective body to prevent him exercising them ; and the spoliation of some poor beggar ot a publican.