The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1910. THE LIQUOR BILL.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 256, 5 November 1910, Page 4

The Marlborough Express PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1910. THE LIQUOR BILL.

In spite of many predictions to the contrary, and in spite, also, of what has been a very general belief amongst Members (that the measure would not be proceeded v.vitli this session), the new Liquor Bill has hnm introduced, and has passed its second reading, without amendment and "on the voices." A series of long speeches on the second reading had been expected; but fortaiiiately the j country has been spared an outpouring of verbosity which would have been practically useless, seeing that all the arguments to be adduced can I just as well be put forth when the .measure is considered in Committee. Moderatidn. : marked the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader iof the Opposition, and from the two deliverances, the public can gain a very fair idea of the main points of the Bill. We are, we confess, very much in sympathy with certain of the views put forward by M:.% Massey, who frankly avowed himself a member of the great "third" or Moderate party. The Government has-, it seems to us, erred in trying to brine; forward a measure which would be acceptable to both the "Trade" and the Prohibitionists. The interests, and we go further, and say the rights, of that great majority of NV.r Zoalanders wlio use without abusing alcoholic beverages, are receiving far too scanty consideration. We are, opposed to the bracketing, as it were, of the No-license and the National Prohibition issues, but on very different grounds from those xipon which the objections of. certain prominent temperance advocates are based. These gentlemen fear that the Moderates may refuse to vote Nolicense when they know^ that by so

doing they vote for . National Prohibition. Bufc the ground w-3 take, is that the people should not bo forced by legislation into such a, position. The people have a perfect right— especially now that the reduction issue is to be struck out —practically to object to "Trade" abuses in any particular district by voting _ Nolicense in that district. But it is simply tyranny to decree iihat this same vote, a vote for reform, and not necessarily for permanent Nolicense, shall be counted for National Prohibition, under which no liquor j c6uld be obtained for other than medical purposes throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion, .It is this, "bracketing" clause ..which is, to our mind, the chief blot upon a measure which contains many good and useful • provisions. We are still, we may say, somewhat in doubt as to whether the Government really means to insist upon the coupling of the two issues. In his opening speech, it is true, the Prime Minister said nothing which vxmld infer an alteration in the clausej but when .replying to the Leader o£ the Opposition he made use of the following.curious, and, as we think, highly significant sentences: "He resented a suggestion that he had not dealt clearly with the question of the joining of the two issues on the ballot paper. He was not foolish enough. to commit himself to what he believed would be an ) impossible or at least a very difficult matter to carry through, but in Committee he w,;ould make proposals which he believed the House would agree to, in order to avoid the possibility of more-than one issue being settled by one person at one time. They would have to make provision so that a vote for No-license alone could be cast.' 1 If there be any meaning in words we cannot come to any other conclusion, after reading the above extract—-from the report in a Wellington, journal—than that the issues are to be separated in some way. Exactly how this is to be done we cannot say; but we shall not have to wait very long for the .necessary information, for the Bill is to come on early next week. Whether it will be passed is, however, doubtful. The "Trade" will not agree to any separation of the issues, for it is notorious that the brewers and others interested are relying upon this clause to save them, holding-, as they do, that No-licehse is now freqtiently' carried by ,a; vote largely composed of Moderates, who would not, however, "go the' whole hog"i of National Prohibition. ' Leaving- the riiuch-discussed qixestion of the double issue, we may now' refer to some other features'in the''Bill. The altered majority rate will* probably be carried, although, should the coupled issues be separated,; the friends of the' "Tra^e" will probably make a determined attempt' to retain the existing three-fifths majority. We do not consider th ( at any such attempt, if made, w'iir be successful. There is a growing feeling in the country, especially amongst the Temperance party, in favor of a bare majority, and notice of an amendment favoring such a majority has been tabled by Mr Malcolm, the Member for Clutha. To the bare majority we may be; and are opposed; but ire are convinced that at the next election the proportion will be lowered if Parliament does not alter it before then. This being the case, and the fact'being weir known to Members of th'es present Hotise, there will be, we; expect; a majority in favor of the SB per cent. " Mr Massey himself, who)" we believe, favorsl; a continuance of the existing^ proportion, admits that'the feeling to which we have referred is growing, and that "Parliament in time will have'to submit.' 1 The "Trade" may not: like the clause which provides for effect being given to a poll a year after the poll has,,been taken, for in last year's Bill the' "time of grace" was two years. But, as the Prime Minister points out, the period will, in practice, work out at 18 months, because the change Avoiild take place at the annual of the Licensing Committees in June. On

one point, upon which the extremists in the Anti-Liquor party have been somewhat noisily Insistent r the Prime Minister has not,' we are pleased to see, given way. This is the proposal that all breweries-existing within five miles of a district in which No-license is carried should be closed' simul-

taneously with;., the : hotels in such district. The practical result of such a; proposal, if carried into law,- would have been that, were; say, the Newtpwn or Wellington Suburbs electorates to carry No-license the two Wellington breweries, would have to be. closed. This would be a monstrous injustice, and we are glad to see that the Prime lyiinister has not yielded to Prohibitionist claims on this pomp. What is now proposed, under clause 41, is that,.all, breweries., within the boundaries of a No-license district will have to close, and no new breweries can he started in such districts; but the- "existing breweries, not in No-license districts but within five miles /of- a No-license district, would not be required to close." Sir Joseph Ward, in explaining this clause, said he knew that the proposal would have strong opponents, but he believed it would be best for the country as a whole. Otherwise it would be just possible for all the breweries in frew Zealand to be closed down,, and. yet, Rational Prohibition not.-being, carried,, importation could go on as befpre. A few words Miow on the reduction issue. Here we differ ' most emphatically from both Sir Joseph Ward and Mr Aiossoy. The Bill abolishes the reduction issue, and Mr Massey says thnt_ he hopes the issue will be abolished, his argument being that "the effect of c-wrying reduction in the cities had bee)i that the trade i was simply transferred from one ! house to another." This is quite I true, we, admit; but both the Prime j Minister -and the Leader of the Op- } position either lose sight of or conj veniently ignore the fact that the I abolition of the reduction issue robs I the people—the Moderates—of a very j big say in the control of the liquor j trade, a. say which the people have a j right to have;; and which ought, we i think, to"be preserved to them. The reduction vote gives the Moderates a j chance to compel the hotelkeepers to : conduct their houses properly, and to provide sufficient and decent accom- ! modation for travellers and boarders. '. Under reduction, a house in which bookmakers, spielers and loose women , notoriously congregate, a \ house which is tumbledown, dirty, ! and really not required by the travelling puHic, can be wipfd out. It is true thas a certain amount of extra trade 'may accrue to the houses left open ; but at any rate the public havevsome guarantee that the trade will be conducted decently and in. order. In a word, reduction affords the Mo'deratfi voter a chance of closing n, merp drinking-den, and this is a right which we hold should not be taken away. The cmestion of bottle licenses, the abolition of which is provided for by the Bill, may be re-

warded as a small matter, but it is one which intimately concerns the comfort and convenience o. tiie Moderates. Why should not a citizen be able to purchase a single bottle of ale or whisky or other alcoholic beverage if he so desires ? Why should he be practically compelled to buy two gallons of liquor at a timer' It seems to us that, so -*« f lo™,^ couraghlg temperance, the Cxause which abolishes the bottle license is calculated to increase rather than to diminish drinking in the homes, Ihe future course of the Bill will be watched with the keenest interest and curiosity. Nominally set down for Tuesday, it is preceded by the Gaming Bill, and .it is therefore improbable that it will get lntoXommittee before Wednesday or Thursday, especially as there' is some chance of the Public Works Statement being brought down on luesday night. If this be done, the Gaming Bill would have to be put through by Tuesday night, which is hardly possible. Sir Joseph Ward is apparently anxious to get the Liquor Bill passed in some form or other; but even after the excellent start made on Thursday night, we are still none too confident that he can accomplish his desire. However, next week should settle the question one way or the other, and until next week all who are interested in the subject must possess their souls in patience.