A LICENSING APPLICATION.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 168, 13 July 1918, Page 6

A LICENSING APPLICATION.

OPPOSED BY THE CHAIRMAN. (United Press Association.) tOPOTIKI, July 12. An application was made by John Peebles to the Bay of Plenty Licensing Committee yesterday- for an accommodation license at Taneatua. Mr Elliott appeared for the applicant, -and Mr Selwyn -Mays, on behalf of the police, opposed the application. After hearing ' evidence the committee retired for 40 minutes. The chairman (Mr Dyer, S.M.) then announced that the license had been carried by the four elected members voting for it, while he had voted against it. A' letter from the Bishop of Waiapu ■waa read protesting against the granting of the license on the ground thatit would be a menace to the Urewera Natives. Mr Elliott said he was now ire a position to prove that there was a vacancy. Since the last meeting was held the Atiamuri license had lapsed. He handed in documents showing that the license fee -had not been paid, and that the licensee had abandoned theppremis s on June 30th. In view of the decision in the case of Wagstaffe v. O'Donnell, Mr Elliott applied for a license for Peebles at Taneatua. The chairman said he had received plarts for the,proposed- additions to the proposed licensed premises. Mr Elliott undertook, if the license were granted, that- those additions j would be mad:e. with any other addi- | lions that might be necessary. 1 ' Mr Elliott called three witnesses, in- I eluding -a brother of the applicant-, and j an agent who collected signatures in fa- I vour of the license. They- stated that j accommodation had been inadequate j since the applicant closed his boarding- j ■house. Under cross-examination they •aid Wd they hoped the license would benefit business -ini the town 1 . They wanted to see the town» progress, and ■wanted to see an improvement in the value of property. They also admit- j ted; that for some years past the town had been stagnant. ■Mr Mays pointed out that the Court of Appeal had laid down that whether -a. license was required in a neighbourhood! must be considered from an administrative and polir-e standpoint. The fact -that Atiamuri ' might be lost to the district should not bias the com- , mitee in favour of the application, as* the applicant took that- risk. Rua's probation time would expire early in ; August, and it was a serious responsibi- j lity. to grant a license for a house five j miles from his boundary. Taneatua , was an important farming district, j mainly dependent on " Native labour, j ' The establishment- of a license would make labour conditions chaotic. The ' tendency at the present time was to restrict the consumption; of liquor, and the responsibilty on the committ-ee wa» grave. Cummings, stationed at Whaikatane for eight years, with an intimate knowledge of Natives and b- , quor troubles, includartg the (prosecution, of Hua in 1915 arid 1916, strongly op-, posed the granting of the license in the public interest. He had l heard no com- ; plaints of shortage of accommodation at Taneatua. If there was any lack of ; accommodation it was due to the applicant's closing his boarding-house 18 months ago. If the license were granted, an experienced police officer must T>e permanently stationed at Tanatua, and that was impossible at the present time. John Hannah, Public Works engineer in charge of ■ construction of the Tau-ranga-Opotiki Railway, stated -that the line would pass through a portionl of, Taneatua. A lifelong experience of_ public works had' shown him that- a licensed house in the vicinity of a route, ■was' highly detrimental to the "workers and public interests. Gangs were disorganised after pay day r and. the loss of efficiency amounted to as- much as five days monthly. Similar reason* ■were largely instrumental in the refusal of the OaMeigh license last year. Andrew Stewart, assistant Public ~Wovks engineer, fully Hannah's evidence, on 19 yeaie* experience.

Five Taneatua settlers, identified ■with the settlement almost since •6he beginnings andi representing Large productive interests, all opposed ■ the license on the grounds that most of tlie farmers were almost entirely, dependent on. Ntitive labour, and l the License would •eriously endanger their position and undoubtedly disturb the peace of the neighbourhood. There was no genuine local demand for the license. A bad feature was the proximity of the proposed hotel to the school. From the .national point of view at the present time, they felt strongly that the appl«'<ition should be rejected'. Te Poehare, an influential! Ruatolci Native, formerly chairman and l for 17 years a member of the Matatua district Maori Council, said he had 'been deputed by a general meeting of four trii> es to oppose the license <.n their behalf. He informed the Bench that, all broad-minded Natives were opposed to ' the license. Sergeant Ferguson, in charge of the district 'including Taneat<ua, cjorrobor ated the eviderice of Constable Cumminga. Inspector Sheehan, iiu charge of the whole police district, informed the 'Court that it would be absolutely essential to station an experienced constable at Taneatua if the license were granted. The police force was much under strength, and the department was unable to staff much more important places. He had had a long experience of Public Works gangs in the vicinity of hotels, and fully endorsed Mr Hor-nah's evidence. He predicted grave trouble with Urewera Natives of the license was established. Under present especially, no committee would be justified in granting the application.

A remarkable feature of -the evidence in opposition to the license was that out of the twelve witnesses called only one was a Prohibitionist. The chairman, announced that the majority of the committee had decided to grahit the application, the four elected members being for the application and the chairman against it. At the request of the committee, the chairman announced the reasons of the majority. Shortly, they were the result of the last committee election, and. the fact- that a house was required in the neighbourhood. The danger to the Natives was exaggerated. The chairman's reasons against the lie en k© were, first, that the evidence did not show that a license was required; secondly, the evidence showed that a boardinghouse without a license tva 3 quite sufii/nen't; thirdly, the menace to Natives was real (his own exj erience showed the terrible havoc wrought by liquor amongst (Maoris); fourthly, there were already too mai .y facil ties for Natives to get liqu >r, and the proximity of Taneatuna to tie Urewera would irake matters worse; fifthly, the universal tendeircy to-day was to restrict the consumption of liquors duiing the war, as exampled by six o'cl<r,cii closing, . T .d the ariifci-shoufing provisions, and to grant the application would traveise this .principle; moreover it was obvious that the Atiamuri license was being sought .because on an increased; consumption of liquor it would pay; sixthly, in face of the example of the •world's leaders in abandoning the coiw sumption/of liquor, he could not (conscientiously support the granting of the application-. '