AGAINST THE LICENSING BILL.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 64, 13 September 1904, Page 2

AGAINST THE LICENSING BILL.

LIGHTS ON LEGISLATIVE PITFALLS. PUBLIC MEETING PROTESTS. St. John's Schoolroom was about half filled last evening, when tho public meeting convened in opposition to the Licensing Bill ovonftuatod. Tho Rev. Dr. Gibb presided, and tho meeting was with tho speakers. Strongly worded resolutions wore carried with one dissentient, and with enthusiasm. Tho Chairman said the No-license party had asked not for this Bill,' but only for amendment of the electoral machinory to prevent repetition of scandals like those connected with tho Newtown and Bruce polls. Beside this objection, they objected to tho Bill on tho ground that it made confusion worse confounded, not only in respect of tho moaning of the provisions of the Bill itsblf, but nlso in respect of the voting wben the voters had to use so many different papers. The Rev. J. Dawson said there were some desirable provisions in the Bill, but they wero hopelessly mixed up with bad opes. If they could not have the good without the bad, all must fall together. Good provisions in tho Bill were the raising of tho young consumer's age (sixteen years to eighteen years), tho raising of the child ago to thirteen years, the punishment of those illegally on hotol premises during prohibited hours, and tho inclusion of club charters within the scope of the No-license issue. The " trade " would not only like to eliminate reduction, but tho licensing poll altogether. He strenuously defended tho reduction issue, and moved : " That this meeting protests against the elimination of the reductiou issue as proposed by clnuße 3 of tho Licensing Bill, which would destroy tho one effective weapon which remains to the moderate reformer since tho abolition of the Licensing Committees' discretionary powers by the Act of 1893, also against clauses *9 and 10 which make the possession of liquor a crime, tho detection of which would requiro the correlative right of search in. every home, an odious and inquisitorial tyranny utterly foreign to Uie fundamental principles of British law, and the whole spirit of British liberty. It calls on Pnrlmment to reject the demand for the option to enact this intolerable tyranny, which comes not from tho men who are inspired by a regard' for their fellows to make tho policy of no-license more effective than at present, but from those who, finding thoir financial interests threatened by the popularity and effectiveness of the policy, are 1 ready to grasp at any nieuns of checking its progress." Mr. A. R. Atkinson seconded. lie thought the Party must hold on to every scrap of powor it possessed for destroying tho liquor trade. A 25 per cent, reduction waa better than nothing. It was absolutely contrary to fact for the Premier to say tho Party had in the nast desired to throw away the reduction issue. They had consented to a plain yea or no at the licensing poll, only ou condition that the power to reduce, eliminated from that poll, should be restored to the* people .through thu Licensing Committees, by restoring to the latter their former Cow«ir to reduce. Though at finit c wos not inclined to agrco with Mr. T. ti. Taylors expressed opinion that the Bill waa a worm one than .vat year's, ho had, on re-examining it, come round himself to that opinion. The fact that it had fewer objcctiouable clauses than tho 1903 Bill made it a more dangerous Bill ; there were quite enough of such clauses to 'lay us all out." Under Clause 9 ("no license, no liquor") oi the 1903 Bill a voter could not vote nu-liconse without conceding that to have posweaaiou of drink in his district was a crime. Under Clause* 9 and 10 of the prmint Bill, tho voter, tfftor voting on the license or no-lioeiuu issue, would have to vote on the further iwuo whether or not no-licaiuHi was to have the effect of no liquor. Ue would show that in this optional form the Bill ivm more dangerous than ever. The voter would *nut know what he was voting for till tho numbers went up-— ho would not know, until the pull was declared, whether the no-licenso he voted for was to bo turned into no liquor or nut. "It is a regular case of thimble-rigging. Show us which, and we wiu choose; but the Juggler will not show us which." It needed a three-fifths majority in order to carry no-license. Tho ground was publio policy, in that wliero there is interference with old-established customs and a running counter to inveterato prejudice, there should bo a great preponderance of public opinion in favour of Bucn interference. No liquor was a still more drastic thing than no-hceiwe— very much moru drastic— -and nominally it also needed a three-fifths majority to carry it ; but if ever no liquor waa carried by a threo-flfths majority, more than half of that majority would "bo made up of those who, on the no-liconse Issue, had voted for lioense. These voters for license would vote for no liquor in order to nwke iu>liconfio, if carried, a farce, an inquisitorial, tyrannical proceeding; in order to mako no-license unpopular, and to drive tho peoplo to the converse concluaiim — that tho only liberty lay in license. For this, purpose, those who hated no liquor even more than no-license would vote no liquor; they would vote for God and Mammon too. The residue of the voters for no-lic«nse would be well meaning nolicenso voters who had not Iho faintest idea of what they wero doing. Ho did not believe the Bill would puss, but if it did, then these clauses would create v further difficulty for those no-licenso voters who had in their mind "»triko out the top line." They would, rightly, strike out tho lop line in license of no license; wrongly, many ot them would strike out tho top line on the no liquor paper also, whereas to effect their object they should striko out tho bottom line on. the no liquor paper. The possibilities of confusion wer» enormous. If the - country was to bo saved from disaster by the trickery of Una second ballot paper, it would bo because n* ninny muddles might bo likely to b© modo on tho liquor os on the nu-licen»o side. Public opinion Avould not carry no liquor; it could only bo carried by liquor peoplo who wished to mako no-hcer^e a faroo, and by top-liners "diddled" by Mr. Soddon's ingenious arrangement into voting for both. After an appreciutory reference to the Evening* Posts recent leader on the subject, Mr. Atkiumm drove tho point home about Clause 10 (which makes possession of liquor m a no-license district unlawful). If Cl/tuso 9 was^airuck out, the no-liquor poll would bo swept away, but Cluiwe 10 would thmi Hill stund by it«elf n re-en« uotment of Clause 9of last y«ur ; no doubt their Parliamentary friends were ahvo to that point. This Clause 10 was, under the provisions «.t the BUI, to be set out on tho ballot-paper to explain to the voter what he was domfc. It« real effect would be to absolutely deceive and mislead the Voter tw the effect ot botu no-licenm and no liquor. What was wantea was a straight-out ballot-papor that nil could understand. While the Bill imposed a £20 fint> for possession of liquor in a noUoonse district, it fixed a maximum penalty of £10 lor a publlcati serving a drunk en man, keeping a disorderly house, etc. If this Bill passed, 150,000 voter» would want to know the reason why. The motion was carried unanimously. Mr. John Hutcheson said the Bill had boon aptly described as subtle and sinister. It was full of traps and pitfalls. Tho issue was Yos-No and No-Yns all the time. The Premier was a past-master at mixing tho issues. Tho Premier was not a prohibitionist simply became flan*.

rial inlorostß wero on the othor side. ! Tho Groat Expodientist had found yot another entanglement for tho advancing enemy, and that was Stato Control. Ho would give thorn all the iasuos — ho would food thom' on issues. All his offorts wero to give the prohibitionists a stone disguised ns a loaf. Ho did not mako an nonost attempt to solvo the problem. Ho loft it to tho pooplo to worry at among themselves. The pooplo had an admitted right to a vote, tho nmchinory of which had boon found defective. This defect had given rise to tho Bruce and Nowtown scandals. Asked for tho nccossnry machinery, tho Premier had, in offering it, mixed with it an interminable mazo of issues designed to take away the right given to thorn. Ho (tho speaker) was prepared to support a submission of Stato control to tho people provided it was shown that a reasonably sufficient number desired the submission, to warrant tho exponso of tho poll. Tho prohibitionists dicf not get their poll till after years of fighting, Dombarding Parliament with petitions. Now, tho giving of the option of Stato Control, without such a tlomand, showed tho cunning of the master hand, in the offort to nullify what tho prohibitionists had won. Thoro was no parity between existing departments 0/ Stato control, and State control of tho liquor traffic. Then, again, thero wns tho matter of compensation, [ the "trade's" right to which ho had always denied. There should be no compensation for loss of goodwill and monopoly that had been givon by the people State Control would assuredly moan compensation not only to owners, but to employees, and tho taking over of all the buildings, chattels, etc., of tho trade. Then thoso engaged in tho trado would be kept in their places by the State, and things would go on just the samo as now, oxcept that the Stato would be responsible, and would have to guarantoo the remuneration of thoso in tho trado. Ho predicted nothing but disaster from Stato Control with Seddon managing it. This was tho most insidious trap ever set for the foot of tho unwary. It was a Greek gift — » horse full of armod men. Tho manager, who would be brought up from ' the West Coast, on the basis of the less tho profits the greater his salary, would never be subjected to the temptation of a £5 noto from the frock-coated gentlomon representing various brands of liquor who desirod to have thoir brand ' pushed. Of course not! He would move — "That this meeting strongly condemns tho proposal of clause 24, which invites I tho to agree to something heroafter to be determined upon, and which, though designated by tho term 'State control,' moans Stato ownorshin with overy oitizon a shareholder. It believes it to mean compensation to the trade, to be lollowed by good billots as State servants, also tho fortifying of the drink habit by a universal pecuniary interest, thus arraying ovory man's selfishness ugainst his cortsclen.ee and philanthropic instinct. It suggests that it would be moro reasonable to wait nntil 10 per cent, of the electors of the colony have asked that' tho State control proposal bo submitted in the manner stipulated, when it will bo time to dotormine whothor it shall bo so submitted, no evidonco oxisting at prosont tliat 1 por cfnt. 'of tho electors of tho colony havo axprcssod any desire fur such a proposal. It urgpa that no liquor should 00 allowod to enter the Cook Islands except for medicinal purposes under the most stringent conditions ; nlso that there be no repeal in clause 23 of section 4 of UlO Act of 1893, whioh requires tho purging of the roll by tho expunging of nonvoters' namos after ovory general election." * v Tho Rev. P. W. Fairdough, while denying that, as a domocrat, ho was against tho -Government that oxtonded tho franchise to womeu ajid sailors, and had given us liquor laws tliat woro tho envy of othor communities, (aid he strongly objocted to this Bill. Ho seconded the motion, which was carried witti one disscutiont.