THE LICENSING BILL PROGRESS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 95, 19 October 1904, Page 2

THE LICENSING BILL PROGRESS IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

RUSHING IT THROUGH. AMUSING INCIDENTS. It appears that the Licensing Bill will pass through the Legislative Council in very much the same form as that in which it emerged from the House of Representatives, except that the phraseology will be altered in a great many places. The feature of yesterday's consideration of the Bill in Committee in the Legislative Council was tne dashing style of the Chairman of Committees (the Hon. R. H. J. Reeves) in dealing with amendments, and in ordering down members whom he considered to be contemplating anything contentious. With an enormous number of verbal amendments standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Attorney-General, consideration of the Bill began with the interpretation clause (2), which waa postponed. A number of verbal amendments were made in Clause 4 defining the effects of no license. The first opposition which the Bill encountered came from the Hon. J. Rigg, who moved to strike out the fii«t words of subsection (f) of Clause 4, which permits residents of no-license districts to go outside the district and bring back liquor not exceeding a^uart of spirits or wine, or a gallon of beer in one day. * The Attorney-General asked the hon. gentleman not to damage the clause. It had been one of the most contentious in the House, and if it were interfered "with, the chances of the' Bill going through wo-uld be seriously damaged. It was very difficult to stop sly grog-selling in nolicenee districts, and the clause had been devised to prevent thia offence. Before a restriction was put on the amount of liquor that could be sent into no-license districts, enormous quantities had been sent in. A contrary view was taken by the Hon. J. M. Twomey, who thought the whole clause was devised to promote sly grogselling, for when a person ordered liquor he would not say he was going to take it into a no-license district. ' He moved to amend the sub- section under discussion in the direction of removing the restriction which permits a resident of a no-license district to obtain liquor freely only when outside the district. t It was contended by the Hon. J. Rigg that it was the duty of the Council to make the Bill as perfect as possible without any reference being had to the difficulties or contentions in the other Chamber. If the whole clause -were struck out it would still be possible to get as much liquor as they wished in no-license districts. The Hon. A. L. Smith thought the clause aimed at conferring an endowment on those houses which were close to the boundaries of & uo-license district. Replying to the Hon. J. Rigg, the At-torney-General said that it was all very well to say that the Council need not take the House into consideration, but it must be remembered thai, the House of Representatives had its rights, too— a position which was warmly combated by tfie Hon. T. K. Mardonald, who protested against the suggestion thai the Council should merely make verbal alterations in the Bills of the Lower House. If that were to be their duty they might as well leave the wnole of the -legislation "to the House. Considerable discussion ended in the rejection of both Mr. Rigg's and Mr. Twomev's amendments.. Ihe Hon. J. *'E. Jenkinson moved to make the sub-section apply not only to residents but to~ persons "travelling into a no-licence district,' 1 his object being to give the tourist permission to obtain liquor in such a district. The amendment was lost. Another amendment was moved, this time by the Hon. A. L. Smith, who moved to prevent liquor from a hotel within two miles of a no-license district being brought into 4uch a district. "Why should a man have to go ten miles to get a gallon, of beer, of quart of spirits, if he can get ft within two miles?" objected the Hon. C. Louisson. The Attorney-General also protested against an ouiside ring being drawn round a no-license district at an arbitrary distance. The amendment was lost. The Hon. C. Louisson moved to delete th« sub-section (gg) allowing chemists to dispense liquor medicinally, which merely meant the introduction of the American system. The Attorney-General said some such provision was necessary, as he did not know of any other provision in any of the Acts which permitted chemists to dispense liquor, even on a doctor's prescription. The proceedings at this point were productive of great amusement in the Chamber and in the galleries. The Chairman put the amendment very rapidly) declared it lost, in spite, of a call for a division bj the Hon. C. Louisson, and rapidly proceeded to- put two amendments moved by the Attorney-General. Speaking rapidly and continuously, he declared both these carried, and jusfc beat the Hon. J. M. Twomey, who was slowly visinu; ir- his seat. Still pursuing a ruthless and decisive course, he put the "clause, despite th« fact that the Hon. C. Louisson arose, and he declared it earned, with a snap. The next clause (abolishing the granting or renewal in no-license districts of publicans' liceises, New Zealand wine licenses, accommodation, bottle, packet, wholesale, and conditional licenses, and club charters), was oh the point of being carried when the Hon. P. Arkwrigbt succeeded in moving an amendment to exempt New Zealand wine licenses from the provisions of the clause. . The Hon. C. Louisson then rose to a point of order, ahd claimed that his call for a division oa^the sub-clause (gg.) had been disregarded. The Chairman .ruled that the motion had been put and decided. The Hon. F. Arkwright's amendment was then lost. The Hon. J. E. Jenkinson moved to amend the clause, &o as to provide that in a no-license district the prohibition against the granting of a rlub charter shall only apply in as far as the right to sell liquor is concerned. After considerable discussion his amendment was lost by 27 to 7, and the clause was agreed to without amendment. There was no discussion over clauses 1 6 and 7 (defining the provisions when changes are made in electoral districts), and a discussion about Magistrates in connection with disputed polls ended in clause 8 (defining the proceedings necessary to secure a recount) being agreed to with verbal amendments. At clause 9 (concerning the procedure for petitions of enquiry) the Hon. J. M. Twomey essayed another amendment, but—was told to "sit down." Several verbal amendments of the Attorney-Gen-eral's were made line by line till Mr. Tw,omey's line wfis reached, and before be knew what had happened his line had passed, and he wrathf ully banged his iiul on his desk. "You knew my amendment was- to come in there," he warmly declared, addressing the Attorney-General. That member gave him an assurance to the contrary, but Mi-. Twomey's chance had gone. The Council then adjourned till the evening. On resuming, clause 9 was carried with amendments that obviated the necessity of clause 10. At clause 14 (which provides that the Chairman of a Court of Enquiry into an alleged irregularity at a poll shall report to the Minister, who shall take action if he thinks fitL the Hon. W. BoJt. moved

to amend the clause to enablfl the Chairman ot the Court to act in the matter of directing prosecutions without reference to the Minister. Some discussion ensued, and a"fter refusing the Hon. G. Jones permission to speak before the question was put the Chairman declared that the amendment was lost. A division was called lor, and the amendment was then lost by 17 votes ot 7. On the clause fixing the penalties for oifences, the Hon. A. L. Smith expressed the opinion that the penalty should depend not on the result of the irregularity, but on the nature of the act that led to that result. In reply, the Attorney-General pointed out that a safeguard lay in the commonsense of the Court, which was given a wide range in fixing the fines. The offences contemplated in the clause were very serious, and called for provision being made for substantial penalties. The clause was eventually agreed to. At clause 15 the Hon. W. Carncross moved to remove the prohibition which makes it a penalty to interfere with an elector with the intention of "advising" him as to his vote. (The clause enacts that 'it shall be an offence to interfere with an elector on the way to tbe polling booth with the intention of "influencing" or "advising" him.) The Attorney-General, who, amid cries of derision, admitted that if a man were driving to a polling booth with a friend he would be breaking the law if he advised his friend how to vote, urged members to uphold the principle involved. Other members protested against the absurdities and anomalies that were possible under the clause. The clause found a supporter, however, in the Hon. T. K. Macdonald, who said it' would do away with a speotacle which he^iad seen, viz., a clergyman inarching a regiment of women to the poll to vote en bloc. Tho clause was finally agreed to, with the At-torney-General's amendments. When clause 17 was reached — the clause which deals with fresh polls, and which provides that -a fresh poll shall not be valid unless the number of valid votes thereat is not less than 55 per cent, of the valid votes at the voided poll — the Hon. C. Louisson moved to substitute 65 per cent, for 55 per cent. The amendment was eventually lost. Clause 19 (fixing the repeals) brought the Hon. J. Twomey up with an ainend,menfc, which aimed at preventing an elector from voting on more than one issue. The Attorney-General said that if the reduction vote were interfered with it would rouse the hostility of the House of Representatives, and lead to a difficulty between the two Chambers. In any case the amendment was one that should come in the form of a new clause. After further debate, the Hon. J. M. Twomey withdrew his amendment, and the clause was agreed to. Some discu&sion took place at clause 20 (dealing with the regulations in the King Country), when the Hon. G. Jones moved an amendment to the effect that it shall not only be unlawful (as contemplated in the Bill) to sell liquor to a male Maori who is under the influence of liquor, but it shall also be an offence to sell liquor to a male Maori so as "to cause him to be under the influence of liquor." A debate on the difficulty of saying ■whethei it would not be an offence to cell a. Maori one drink ended in the rejection of the amendment. The next clause (21) concerned the sale of liquor in the Cook Islands, and was agreed, to without amendment. In the next clause, which provides that the Collectors of Customs in the Islands may take possession of afl intoxicating liquors in the Islands, there is a provision that "a Collector of Customs may refuse to take over" any unsaleable or inferior liquor. The Hon. J. Rigg moved to alter "take over" Jo "pay compensation for" in this Litter provision. He wanted to know what was to become of the liquor which the Collector of Customs refused to take over. "He can apply it to any purpose he likes, provided he does not sell it," was the Attorney-General's reply. "Make painkiller of it, I suppose," suggested the Hon. G. Jones. The amendment was lost on the voices, and with great velocity the Chairman rushed the words through, while the Hon. G. Jones was urging that a, provision should be introduced for the confiscation of unsaleable liquor, which, he urged, should nob be exported for consumption elsewhere. The Hon. J. Rigg moved that Africans should be added to the list of persons to whom liquor shall not be sold. In the Bill the prohibition extended) to Asiatics, he said, and he thought no distinction should be made. Eventually As : atics and Africans were exempted from the operation of the clause. The remaining clauses up to clause 30 were passed unamended, and progress was reported. , The Council rose at 11.25 p.m.

Several amendments are to ,be moved by members, flhe most important of which have been outlined previously. The Hon. F. Arkwright has a new clause dealing with the bona fide traveller, and fixing the onus of proof of bona fides on the traveller himself. The Hon. H. Feldwick proposes that when any person has been more than twice convicted of drunkenness within six months, the Magistrate may make a prohibition order against him without a formal application for its issue being necessary.