THE LICENSING BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXII, Issue 13573, 20 October 1904, Page 9

THE LICENSING BILL.

IN COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL. [FkOJI Oun CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, October 19. The Licensing B.ill was further considered in Committee, in the Council this afternoon. At Clause 31, dealing with licensing committees, and their constitution, several verbal alterations were made. “ Let us improve the language, if you won’t let us improve the Bill.” pleaded the Hon G. Jones. This was followed by an elaborate discussion as to whether the Bill should sav “none is” or “none are. The Hon J. Rigg took exception to tbo proviso that it should not ba necessary for the chairman and two members to be actually present together for the purpose of i.jointly exercising their powers. He want--led to” know why this proviso, which had been dropped in the Bill of 1895, had been carried. A judicial act should he considered. be done in a. judicial manner, because many of the committee’s duties were not merely administrative, but something more. He. moved to strike out the provise. The Attorney-General said that the present arrangement, whereby the committee had to meet and deal with various minor administration Acts, had been productive of much inconvenience, and it was to obviate this that the proyiso had been inserted. The Hon C. Louisson said that some such provision was necensary, otherwise there would be great difficulty in getting men to sit on licensing committees in the country. Applications for conditional licenses might, without the proviso, experience a very long delay in being granted. The Hon G. Jones wished to move a further amendment, but said that he would not do so, as it was obvious that the Council was the thumb of the Government. . , , On a division, the Hon J. Rigg s amendment was lost by 25 to 29. The Hon T. Kennedy McDonald moved to strike out the whole of the licensing committee dances, with a. view to substituting a Licensing Court, consisting ol three Magistrates. He did so because the functions of licensing committees, as at present constituted, had become brassed. The whole system had broken down, and at election time it had degenerated into a disappointing struggle, a poor spectacle, which did not conduce to the wellbeing of the community. The voting on this question in the Lower Ghamb.-r had been nearly equal, and he thought the Council might very well deal with it, irrespective of the vote in the House. The Licensing Committees in many districts in the colon} were composed of men whose opinion would never bo asked in a- business proposal. an<i who yet had to deal as Licensing Committees with large capitalistic issues. / . , The Hon J. Rigg characterised the 1 amendment ae » most undemocratic one. It would only be bearabl© in the event of Stipendiary Magistrates being elected by the people. The question had been originally raised by the Government, hut he had nothing but a wholehearted reprobation for it. The Attorney-General, referring to the Hon J. Bigg’s statement that the Government had made a similar proposal in last rear’s Bill, said that it was a complete mistake. He hoped, however, that the committee would not reject the clause' in the Bill. The amendment contemplated by the Hon T. K. M’Donald was such a vital one that if it were earned, the Bill might as well be abandoned, for it would never be agreed to by the other chamber. If it were carried, then it would be goodbye to the Bill for this session. The committees might or might not he partisan committees,'but they were elected by the people, and he was sure that the people would not consent to forego that right. Nobody in the other place would dare to accept such an amendment. “ I am tired of hearing it said in this debate that we must not amend the Bill lest, it should be disagreed with by the other House,” began the Hen S. T. George, who supported Mr M’Donald’s amendment. He stated that some years ago a Licensing Bench had been influenced by something which its members bad read. “ Very refreshing,” retorted the Hon G. Jones, who expressed pleasure at seeing the fight that had cropped up. Mr George was a “ clubbist.” He did not know what public sentiment was, or what public opinion was on the subject. If he wanted to know what public opinion was, let him remember that as soon.-is the Premier made any suggestion that the present committee system should bo changed there was a storm that made him change his mind. He challenged the opponents of the no-license party to point to a single wrong act that was committed by the Licensing Committees. The fact was that the Licensing Committees had begome so representative of the people that they were becoming a menace to the liquor traffic. If the people were not to rule through their representative who was to rule? Regarding the statement that members of licensing committee? would never lie elected to any other position he considered that if that was a fact it was due to the fact that they were too 'honourable. To those who objected that the licensing committees were largely elected by women he would point to the House of Representatives, which, since the introduction of female suffrage, had been more intelligent and more in touch with public opinion than before.

A storm of dissent from a mall section of the Council greeted this pronouncement, and with the expression of a whin that the Council was equally in touch with the public mind, Mr Jones concluded his speech. The Hon F. Trask said that if they passed Mr M’Donald's amendment they would kill the Bill. He would have supported the amendment had it been in the Bill, but as it was not he would have to vote a'-radnst it.

The Hon J. M. Twomey said that be wruld not take from the people a privilege once accorded to them. He regretted incidentally that tb© churches were beginning to make themselves political institutions. The Hon A. Baldey supported the amendment, because he had noticed that the reduction vote in many districts had been wrongly administered by biassed committees. The present licensing committees were too much on one side. The Hon G. Jones: Of course they are, the right side.”

“What are we here for,” continued Mr Beehan. with a protest against the At-torney-General's repeated threats. •The Attorney-General resented the imputation that is had threatened the Council. He had simply put the position plainly before it and expressed the opinion that as the Lower House had framed the Bill on a compromise arrived at at a conference the Upper House might similarly sink some of its abjections and pass the Bill. The debate was interrupted by the five ■ o'clock adjournment. - _ On resuming, the discussion wandered off for some time into a controversy as to whether Colonel Pitt was “ intimidating ” the Council or not, a discussion in which the Hon W. Beehan was particularly verbose and' impressive. The Hon W. M. Bolt said that the Councillors who were seeking the amendment were barking at the moon. It was the most reactionary' and undemocratic suggestion that had been made since he came into the Council. He instanced the case of Dunedin where, owing to the action of elective licensing committees, the city had been purged of its worst drinking dens to the benefit of both the people and the trade. They had no mandlate from the people to withdraw a privilege. It was a piece of downright cheek to introduce such an amendment. Mr Bolt thought that it .would be an injustice to the country if the amendment were carried. The Hon F. H. Fraser also opposed 1 it on the ground that it was undemocratic. The committees elected by the people had been men of intelligence and worth. It would be a mistake to take the power from the

people. He did not believe they would standi it. He went on, to deny that the Bill, though a. good one, would! give the country a rest from licensing legislation for nine years- The temperance party would go on educating the public and further perfecting the law as often as was possible. The amendment then went, to a. division and’ was lost by 22 to 6. LAPSED LICENSES. Clause 53, relating to the removal of lapsed licenses was struck out and will be replaced by another clause to similar effect. LICENSEES AND LICENSES. In Clause 54, applicant for license to fumish testimonials, the proviso that the . section shall not apply in the case of any applicant whose name is already on the register of licenses was struck nut. On Clause 55 endorsement of licenses Mr Rigg complained that the repeals, mentioned in the Bill made it s - o intricate and involved' that it was impossible, without hours of study, to understand its provisions. The clause passed) with verbal amendments. Dealing with Clause 57, recording convictions, Mr Rigg urged that certain offences against the Act should be recorded against the premises as well as against the licensee and moved to amend' the clause accordingly. The Attorney-General moved to postpone the clause so that it could be compared with Clause 35 which, he considered, would require re-committal for further amendments. Clause. 38, transfer where a. lease is determined on account, of endorsement, was described by Mr Rigg as one of the most remarkable in the Bill, and calculated' to make publicans seek to commit breaches of the law. The clause provides that the licensing committee may cancel a license and transfer a lease when a, licensee has been twice convicted. Mr Rigg held that it was improper that a brewer should, when his “ tied ” premises had two endorsements have such a weapon to hold over his tenants, “ a weapon that he might use to force increased 1 sales of his bed' and thus lead to such breaches of the law as selling after hours. The Attorney-General held that the clause was necessary for the protection of the property of the landlord. On a division the clause was retained by 29 to 5. BONA FIDE TRAVELLERS. When the traveller clause was reached the Hon F. Arkwright said that there was no such thing a« a bona fide tra,veller in the colony on a Sunday. The clause should be struck out. altogether, as it was simply an incentive to Sunday drinking. The Hon C. C. Bowen agreed with this. He said that the traveller was a nuisance to the publican and everyone else. If a traveller wanted a drink he should take it with him. The Hon F. Trask moved that the proviso limiting the amount of liquor supplied to a traveller to one drink should be struck out. The Hon W. M. Bolt concurred with this, and said that there was nothing in the clause to prevent a man buying a quantity of liquor at one time and adjourning to a back parlour and drinking it all the afternoon. With a view to a further amendment the. Attorney-General consented to postpone the clause. This was agreed to. WHOLESALE LICENSES. The wholesale license clause was passed unaltered. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO YOUTHS. The Hon S. T. George moved that the word “ apparently ” should be struck out when applying to “persons apparently under the age of eighteen years.” arguing that the restriction was unfair to the publicans. The Attorney-General said 1 that the clause had been the law since 1881, and such an amendment would be against the interests of the publican. The amendment was lost on the voices. The Hon T. K. MacDonald moved that the age of eighteen should be lowered to sixteen. There were married men in the colony under eighteen years of age; and they should not be debarred' from going into a hotel for a glass of beer. The Hon George Jones said that af:- that age young men had no right to be married. The Hon T. K. MacDonald: Well, I know men in the colony who ate married under that age, and who are doing fheir duty as men. The Hon W. Carncross in the meantime had slipped out for the “ Year Book," and explained that according to the returns there was only one young man under eighteen in the colony who was married. They should preserve such youug fools from making worse fools of themselves. The Hon J. M. Twomey: Sir, T can’t say that I’m sorry for these young men. I envy them. The clause was passed unamended, as was that concerning the sending of children for liquor. The Hon D. Pinkerton moved that in order to give ready access to the, police after closing hours doors opening on to the street should be left, open after the bars were closed for a, period, of thirty minutes. The Hon C. Louisson said that he thought that the amendment was unnecessary. When the customer was made equally liable with the landlord for after hour drinking, the hotel would empty very quickly. The amendment was lost on a division by 22 to 1, and progress was reported at 11.20 p.m.