THE LICENSING CONTROVERSY.

Evening Post, Volume LXVI, Issue 45, 21 August 1903, Page 2

THE LICENSING CONTROVERSY.

BARLEY AND HOPS. VIEWS OF THE GROWERS. • Another contribution to the licensing controversy was made by a MarlboroughNelson deputation that waited on the Premier yesterday afternoon, and asked him that in any licensing legislation the interests of hop and barley growers be considered in the way of protecting them in their present markets. The importance of the hop and barley growing industries to the colony was put before the Piemier, with the aid of statistics, by members of the deputation. Air. A. G. Fell, o f Picton, said they had watched the moderate vote steadily leaving them and going over to the other side. The moderate principle seemed to be "mend or end," and, in order to win that vote back, the deputation wished to see the retail liquor traffic so mended as to «atisfy the colony so that the colony would allow the traffic to continue. The lives of those in the hop and barley business depended on it. He hoped that the Premier would help to satisfy the moderate vote. Tho Premier said that those who supported abolition of the liquor trafiic considered that while tbe hop and barley industries would suffer, ib would be to the general benefit of the community at large if drink was prevented. The deputation's answer to the remark that land could be turned to other uses, was that it could not be turned to other uses to the same advantage. The deputation's influence would be move effective if it was brought to bear on those farmers who, while nob directly interested in hops or barley, were still tillers of the soil, and who might be brought to recognisß that, while hops and barley went first, ultimately something else might go, and thereby all the farmers in the colony might suffer. That was for the deputation's consideration, not for his. His = duty was simple — to give effect to the' will of the people. If the majority of the people of the colony were in favour of prohibition, effect must be given in that direction. As to bringing in licensing legislation, this was easier said than done. The two parties would fight stubbornly, and it was a question whether those like himself who supported the moderate side would be able to prevail. He almost dreaded the name of a liquor Bill. Taking the House as it stood now, he was unable to say where the majority of members were on the question, and liow far they would be prepared to go. He was not prepared to do anything unreasonable on either side ; he was prepared to give effect to what he believed to be the *vill of the great majority of the people, apart from what the trade or the prohibitionists asked. He agreed that the big vote cast at the last licensing poll for no-license was hot solely prohibitionists, but those who voted were largely moderates, who for some reason or other decided to vote no-license. As to "mending or ending," there was no doubb that the result if it continued as at present would be the ending of the liquor traffic in this colony. The reason why a greater number of voters had casl their votes for no-license was disgust at the regulation under existing conditions. The conduct of the hotels had certainly not been what it should. The law declared that liquor should not be supplied to those who had had too much liquor. The continual sight of men — and women, too — drunk was evidence at once that there had been a breach of the law. The question was how they were going to stop it? People in the trade broke the law, and men naturally revolted at seeing other men in this condition, and resolved to vote no-license, as the trade had had repeated warnings. He did not himself see how they were to blame such voters. However, there ought to be a change in the law. He suggested that they should make 'the hotel building and the licensee responsible — that they should license the hotelkeeper and the building itself. If they did that they would have better control and- regulation than at tho present time. Suppose the barman or barmaid was made personally responsible and liable for fine for supplying liquor *to any one in a state of liquor, the possibilities were that they would not then find that this offence was going on. Why should not the person who assisted in breaking the law by buying liquor after hours be equally liable with the publican, as in English law ? On the larger question, which more directly affected the deputation's interests, the people would decide at the ballot-box. To the people the deputation should go to bring their position before the people. It was for the people to be fully seized of the position and to decide ; and it was the duty of the Government at the same time to provide in its legislation proper opportunity for the people to so decide ; and • when the will of the people had been given, and that in no unmistakable manner, legal effect would be given to ifc. In any legislation placed before Parliament he would not give way to what either the trade or the prohibitionists asked for beyond what th« people demanded ; he considered that both' the trade and the prohibitionists had gone to extremes. They could not make ib a party question ; each member would and should have a free hand as a representative of the people. Another point to be considered was the finance of the colony and tho local bodies, which were both involved. He must take it that the people were fully conversant with the effect one way or the other, and it was a matter the people must practically decide.