The Hastings Standard Published Daily. MONDAY, NOV. 30, 1896. THE LICENSING POLL.

Hastings Standard, Issue 184, 30 November 1896, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily.

MONDAY, NOV. 30, 1896. THE LICENSING POLL.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs tiiat need resistance. For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

In the " burly burly " of the political strife which pertains to a general election the importance and effect of the licensing poll is being overlooked. The New Zealand Times, in the course of an article on the subject, directs the attention of the electors to some of the salient points of the existing law, and the anomalies and injustice that would accrue as the result of a reduction vote. The Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Amendment Act, 1895, under which the forthcoming election will be regulated, provides that at every general election a poll of the electors shall be taken upon the following proposals :

1. 1 vote that tlie number of licenses continue. 2. I vote that the number of licenses existing in the district be reduced. 3. I vote that no licenses be granted in the district. The elector must strike out one, or not more than two, of these issues. If he fails to strike out one or erases more than two the paper becomes invalid and the vote is lost. Two separate ballot boxes will be provided* in each polling place, and the local option paper must be deposited in the box appropriated to it. If, on counting the votes, it is found a majority of all those voting is in favor of the first proposal, viz., the continuance of licenses, then existing licenses will remain as they are for the • ensuing three years, or until another poll is taken. But it may here be noted that the continuance of existing licenses will not debar the licensing committee from annulling any licenses at any quarterly meeting where satisfactory

evidence is given of misconduct of the licensee. If there is an absolute majority in favor of the second proposal—reduction—then at the annual meeting in June the committee shall reduce the number of licensed houses as follows :—" A minimum of one where the total number does not exceed ten ; two where the total number does not exceed thirty; and three where the total number exceeds thirty; the total reductions in any one licensing district not to exceed 2-~> per cent of the whole. It will thus be seen that a very great power has been placed in the hands of electors, which involves a heavy responsibility for thi proper exercise of the privilege. A salient feature of the poll, which has escaped general observation, is that of th t ; question of a reduction of licenses. Many of the most pronounced prohibitionists three years ago condemned the reduction vote as bad in principle. We agree with them and siiy if there is any right at all for interference, that it is both unjust and impolitic that such right should be exercised for the purpose of crushing one man to benefit his neighbor. As many persons, who are not prohibitionists and who have no sympathy with the movement, may be misle 1 by the specious arguments of those who would prevent others indulging in a glass of liquor, are under the impression that they would be voting to close what they consider unnecessary hotels, we will endeavor to show that such is not the case, and that from all points of view a reduction vote is a mistake. All persons witli any knowledge of the subject admit that a reduction in the number of licensed houses does not reduce the amount of drinking. Rather the reverse. The great outcry against Working Men's Clubs is that by concentrating the business more drinking is done. If a reduction vote is carried, which it can be by a bare majority, the licensing committee must reduce the number of licenses in the hard and fast manner we have mentioned. The first houses the committee have to close if reduction were carried, are those which have their licenses endorsed for a breach of certain sections of the Act. It might happen that through the carelessness, or neglect, or obstinacy of a servant, the best house in the district got its license endorsed. The committee in such an instance would have no option, or discretion in the matter, but would have to close that house before they could touch another, even if in every respect the endorsed house were the more desirable premises. Another point that is commonly overlooked is that it is the house which gets the endorsement and not the tennant. Instances are not unknown where a tenant who is leaving, has been instrumental in getting an endorsement in order to gratify his spite on the owner. What a reduction really means is, prohibition by a baremajority. We feel convinced that the electors of this district, when they understand the question, will realise their responsibilities and will not tolerate a small but noisy minority dictating to them on the matter.