CUSTOMS AND THE LIQUOR TRADE

Dominion, Volume 39, Issue 28, 27 October 1945, Page 6

CUSTOMS AND THE LIQUOR TRADE

Allegations Said To Be Unwarranted ADDRESS TO LICENSING COMMISSION “It is necessary to make some reference to the serious attacks made by Mr. Boys (one of the counsel for the Alliance) on the Customs Department, arising out of various official dealings between it and members of the trade,” said Mr. J. D. Willis, counsel assisting the commission, in his final address to the Royal Commission on Licensing in Wellington yesterday. “I am not here to plead the cause of the trade, but it is my plain duty io endeavour to see that responsible officials and departments are not subjected to extravagant, criticism and attacks. Knowing Mr. Boys as I do, I am sure that on reflection he would like to have framed his criticisms differently. It is one thing to say of a department that it has made a mistake in its policy; quite another to say that it is betraying subservience to particular interests. Mr. Boys had referred to the department’s alleged subservience to the trade and had claimed that it had granted the trade special privileges, said Mr. Willis. In his submission these sweeping assertions were entirely without foundation and were in'no way supported by the evidence.

The theory propounded by Mr. Boys appeared to be based on the idea that, because of the evils that resulted from the excessive consumption of alcohol, the brewing of beer was in itself a most obnoxious trade and that it was not entitled to any consideration whatever and should be restricted in every possible way.

“I am bound to state,” said Mr. Willis, “that the brewers are carrying on what is still perfectly legitimate business, and arb entitled to receive from the Crown such facilities as will enable them 1 to carry on their business in a normal and reasonable way. There is no evidence to show that the department has treated brewers and the liquor trade generally differently from other industrialists and traders.” ■ Mr. Willis went on to discuss in detail the 12 points made by Mr. Boys about the Customs Department. The Crown, he said, contended that the Minister and the department had dealt honestly, fairly and justly with Westland Breweries, Ltd., and that a penalty fully commensurate with the offences was imposed. Before coming to his decision the Minister was fortified by the opin? ion of the senior law officer of the Crown and the then Solicitor-General. With regard to the alleged sale of sugar by Ballins to illicit distillers, the department was fully satisfied as to the use of sugar by Ballins for brewing purposes, and had no control over the sugar stocks held by the company for the purpose of other branches of its business. The department, however, had taken particular care to see that the matter was brought to the attention of the Rationing Controller in Wellington, and did not rest till he had arranged for a full investigation. The permit given to Hughes and Cossar to use spirits of wine had been given to enable the company to continue, to a limited extent, its existing legitimate' business of compounding liqueurs in which spiriis of wide was a normal constituent. There was no evidence that the company had produced beverage gin from the spirits of wine. Another of Mr. Boys’ points seemed to be based on the entirely unwarranted assumption that the illicit spirits, known to have been sold in recent year?, were ■the product of licensed wine stills. “I do not propose to comment on Mr. Boys’ claim about the alleged profit made by brewers out of the sale of water, except-to point out that the operational manufacturing costs to the brewer are constant whether he brews a light or a heavy brew,” said Mr. Willis.. “To the extent that he uses less materials in the former case he saves expense, and that factor was taken into account when the duties were altered.”