WOMEN AND HOTELS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1159, 21 June 1911, Page 5

WOMEN AND HOTELS.

THE PKESIDENT OP THE M,L:V,A, .; ON THE QUESTION. Sir,—Since the publication of. that portion pf tho business having referenco to the subject of women and hotels, ns tliscusscil at tho annual meeting of the Auckland Licensing Bench last week, a considerable amount of comment has been, and is still, being indulged in. The subject is of a far-reaching char-acter,-'.mucirmore so than may ent at first sight. At a cursory glance, and even/perhaps, from a theoretical point.of view, it might bo thought simple tnough,; to .suggest with some degree of justification .that women should- not, for certain 'reasons, be supplied with liquor for consumption on licensed premises. But a'practical analysis of tho position will reveal a condition of things that spells; unfairness, impractical, illogical, inequitable, undemocratic, and . hypocritical dealing, involving embarrassment und drastic restrictions of that freedom and' liberty which every British subject not only prizes, but is justly entitled to enjoy. One phase of the question that appeals to many people is this: If the practice uf supplying liquor in,a legitimate manner to women for consumption on licensed premises in Auckland is considered improper or irregular, why restrict such conditions to Auckland? If it is right that such- conditions should be applied to Auckland, ' why not apply them to the suburban areas, and even, to the whole of the Dominion? And then, if they are applicable' to the whole of New Zealand, why not make them lawful? The/Legislature had the opportunity ■ of doing so last year, when the Licensing . Amendment Act'was before Parliament. The barmaid and the age limit questions wore then dealt with, but the supply of liquor to women was left religiously alone. Why? The reasons are so obvious, that they require no explanation from.m» at this juncture. ■ Take as one example, the case of a man. end his wife, who go into an hotel t«. gether,. and ask to be supplied with refreshment. They are to all intents and purposes respectable, perfectly sober, and otherwise eligible to be supplied wiHi liquor. The hotelkcepnr's license entitles hini to comply with their request, arid ho is quite withiu his legal rights if ho does supply them. But it is just horo that the_ Bench and the police step in and say: "\Y'e approve of you serving the man. but disapprove" of you supplying the woman," thus placing the hotelkeepor in the unenviable, awkward, and embarrassing position of having to address liis customers thus: "Mr. So-and-So, I can supply you with what you ; require, but J regret that I cannot supply your wife, unless she takes it off the premises." The answer tho hotelkeepcr expects, and invariably gets, is this: "If you won't supply my wife, you certainly shan't supply mo. l-Jood-rtay." It should be borne in mind that there are women and women. For instance, there are women travellers; women who, by reason of circumstances, become weary, tired, sick, and otherwise distressed or indisposed. Are. their claims to be disregarded and ignored? It is true that there is a class of women commonly called "undesirables," and it may be that this section, (which is comparatively small) should be specially dealt with; but it is equally'trim, that there are men just as undesirable as women. Why not deal with them as well? I admit that it is often extremely difficult to discriminate and determine between thoSe who should come under the heading of "undesirables" and those who should not; but having discovered those who can be recognised, as coming within the category, then the Licensing Act comes to the hotelk'eoper's assistance, and tells him that if ho permits his premises to be the hcbitual resort, or place of meeting,' of reputed prostitute, whether the object of their so resorting or meeting if, or is not, prostitution, he ahall, if ho [allows them to remain thereon longer than is necessary for Hie purpose of obtaining reasonable refreshment, be liable to a fine not exceeding, for the first offence, ten pounds, and not exceeding, for. thn second and any subsequent oD'cncc, twenty pounds, mid, in addition, a record of every conviction of such iin offence shall be endorsed on his license. Another section provides that any hotelkeeper may refuse to admit _ to, and may turn out of, the premises in respect of which his license is granted, any person who is drunken, or who is violent, quarrelsome; or disorderly, whether drunken or. not; and any person whose presence on his promises' would subject him to a penalty under the Act, and may refuse to serve any such person with liquor if demanded only as a pretext for remaining on such premises. So that under the Section (No. 187), last quoted , from, there even appears to be something in the nature of an implied inference, that a woman can, under certain conditions, demand to lie served with refreshment. If there is anything in Buch a contention, the position becomes more difficult- and embarrassing, and really rcsolvos itself into one of administration according to circumstances. Then, there is. another class of women,

who, by reason of her being an inmate, lodger, or guest in an hotel-(to whom-nc exception is taken, either by Bench 01 police), may bo supplied (so long as slit is not in a. state of intoxication) with [ifjuoi - for consumption, either on or oil the premises, until the cows come home. Surely this savours of a system of placing class against class. What difference • is there between the dcsivablo vioinan ! who happens to bo an inniafo, lodger, 01 , guest in an hotel, and tho woman, who, . by force of circumstances, docs not and ' cannot coine under either of these heart- ■ ings? If it is proper, and in order, to i supply one class of clcsiraljlo woman, it , surely is equally fair and right to supply ■ the other. ; AVo are told that the Bench and the . police disapprove of the practice of supplying women with liquor for consumption , on licensed premises because of "public ! opinion." I.; it fitting, in (he public interests, that such a pronouncement should come from either body? What is public opinion? Are the merits of every case to be dealt with and decided on "public opinion"? Is "public opinion" infallible nnd always right? And is tho trend of "public opinion" always correctly gauged by either police or Licensing Bench? ■ Perhaps, as an hotelkeeper, I should not attempt to criticise the actions of either the Licensing Bench or the police. But, as a citizen of the Dominion, I have a right to do so, in a fair and legitimate way. So far as the supply of liquor to women is concerned, the law has made due provision. That being so, and after taking all other circumstances into consideration, I cannot help thinking that every caso should be dealt with according to and on its own merits. In the meantime, however, I have given a certain verbal undertaking; whether in all the circumstances I was right, or even "justified in accepting what was probably wellmeant advice to do so, is another matter altogether. . . . The assertion that the leaders of the Trade had, some time ago, decided that the practice of. supplying women with drink for consumption on . tho premises should cease, is one of those half true statements that really mean neither one thing nor the other. The followinrt are the facts:—At a meeting of the combined interests, held in tho Federal Hall on January 15, 1909, Hie subject of supplying liquor to women (among others) came up for discussion during my unavoidable absence from the meeting. As soon as I discovered what had taken place, and recognised its importance, another meeting of tho retailers only was held to review and further consider tho position. The result of this meeting was that a second meeting of the combined interests was held hi the Chamber of Commerce rooms on January 21, 1909 (but which was not reported in the press), at which a vigorous and # almost unanimous protest was entered against the adoption of the proposals, which had practically been put through at the Federal Hall meeting. Fepling that the whole question is of such public moment, and, quite apart from my private and official connection With tho business, I cannot help referring again to the action of the licensing Committee. The police reports concerning tho hotels affected stated that large numbers of women (comparatively) were served with liquor for consumption on the premises. It was no.t alleged, in either case, that the women were other than respectable, or that there was anything in their conduct that could be complained cf. There was nothing to show that tho trade so conducted was other than legitimate and proper, or that it was against the law. Both houses were said by the police to be conducted properly in every respect. But it was alleged that that vague thing, "public opinion" was opposed to tho practice of serving women with liquor in hotels. Tho chairman, Mr. Cutten, S.M., may be left to speak for the Bench •on this matter. As reported in the press: "3lr. Cutten said the position was that the conduct of these two hotels was reported on very favourably by the police. The Conrt had to admit at once that it was not against the law for women to be supplied with liquor in hotels, and that the licensees in doing so had done nothing that was not in accordance with the law. The committee, however, disapproved of the practice . . ~ and thought the practice was.not only.against public opinion, but against the interests of the licensees." Now, the licensees were practically forced to accept the dictum of the Bench, becauso they were really powerless to assert their legal position, in view of tho decision arrived at by the committee at tho previous quarterly meeting, to regard, as "badly conducted all hotels that supplied liquor to women. Here, then, we have tin attempt made by the Auckland LicenBing Committee to assert its superiority to the law; their action constituting a very real danger in the practical assertion of the power to dictate to licensees' conditions other than those marked oiit by tho law. The committee, I may point out, is elected (o carry out the provisions of tho law, and I respectfully submit that it has no authority to go outside that law, nor has it the right to prescribe conditions that are not provided for by the law of the land. Further, it has no right to set what.it imagines to he "public opinion" (generally the/voice of "Jlrs. arundy") above the law. I think I am right in saying ' hoteikeepers generally share my opinion that licensees have no right to set themselves above the law, nor to say that they will put upon any section of the public a disability that is not imposed by .the law itself. That has most certainly been done in the case of the women of this city, who are now told, practically, that, no 'matter how respectable they maybe, nor. how well conducted, the right of obtaining. a'glass of wine is to bo denied to them in houses that are licensed by law to retail such liquor to all reputable citizens. If the law discriminated between the sexes, thero might bo some justification for the decision come to by tho Licensing Bench, that the practice of supplying liquor to women must cease, as far as the Auckland Licensing District is concerned. IJut the women, equally with the men, have the franchise, and. they use it just as freely. In some cases it is, indeed, easier to get the women to the poll than it is the men. They have their rights as well as the men, and 1 can assure you that very many of those who are affected by the decision resent very strongly tho deprivation put upon them by tho committee. They object to be placed in the same position as the Maori women, who are expressly debarred by law from being supplied with liquor. They say, and very truly, that, if it is not against the law, neither the Licensing Committee, nor the hotel licensee, have tho right to say that-they shall, not be supplied, to long as they behave- themselves decently, and are respectable, law-abiding citizens. And who dares to say that they are wrong? What, has so-called "public opinion" to do with' tho business? And what constitutes that opinion? Is it not a fact that the very people who allege "public opinion" is against tho practice, would be the first to declare that public opinion is also against the supply of liquor to men? Tho Auckland Licensing Committee, so far as I am aware, is tho only Licensing Committed in the Dominion that has taken I his stand against the supply of liquor to women. Its action is the more unjustifiable because, last year, our licensing legislation was revised, and two out of the three "reforms" to which tho Auckland traders are said to have pledged themselves—the supply of liquoi to youths under twenty-one, aud the aboli tion of barmaids (and the first of these "reforms" p-ovoked the derisive comment from tho rabid teetotal section: "AVhal sort of a trade is it that has to be pro hibited from serving peDple under twenty ono years of age")—were placed'on tin Statute-book. If "public opinion," as thi Auckland Committee, asserts, is again? tho supply of liquor to women, how i: it Parliament did not legislate on tin lines laid down by the Auckland Com mittee? Is not its failure to do so tin very best proof that there is really n< defined opinion against tho practice? Ho tel licenses in this country have a ver great deal to contend with, and it i extreriielv unfair to saddle them with th odium that must inevitably attend th. over-riding of tho law in this' niatteV However, the declaration has gone forth for good or ill, and I can (inly ox pros tho hope that it may not be found t. have acted (as I fear it will) in antngnms ing a large section of the public that under other circumstances, would b found voting with the hotels for continn ance, and against national prohibition.am, e c, PALMEIi, President L.V.A. of N.Z. Auckland, June VI, 1911.