CORRESPONDENCE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 16 November 1922, Page 5

CORRESPONDENCE

LICENSING ACT

(To the Editor)

Sir, —Following in the train of my previous letter you state that in the event of State Purchase and Control being canned the Government, under the Licensing Act of 1919, is compelled to pay compensation to owners and licensees of breweries, hotels and accommodation houses and wine makers, and that the Amendment Act of 1919 authorises the borrowing of ten million pounds under the heading of State purchase, compensation etc. I claim that both Acts of 1919 only apply to the last election. Does it? Please explain. I further claim that if State Control is carried the Government reserves themselves the right as* to what brewery, hotel, acconimodation house or wine maker’s business they wish to purchase for the carrying on of the liquor trade under State Control. It will thus he seen that compensation does not exist in .the true sense of the term. It narrows itself down to this, that the Government are in the position to buy where, how and when they like- and at a price conducive to their ideas of values. Am I right? Please explain? Again last election, if I remember correctly, compensation went to the extent of applying itself to employees in the liquor trade. Did it; Please explain? I am, etc., SEARCHLIGHT'.

(Although Sections 65 etc. relating to State Purchase and Control refer only to “the next General Licensing Poll 1 ’ (see. Section 56) the same issues arc to he subiiiitted at subsequent polls until Prohibition or State Purchase and Control has been carried (Section 74). As to compensation for employees, there is a distinction between the Special Poll of 1918 and the present one. Under the Special poll the trade was to be bought, out and closed down. Under State Purchase and Control the trade is still to he carried on, and it is assumed that the employees would be retained (see Sec. 69 (1)). Compensation to them is therefore unnecessary and is not provided for in the present law;. Section 67 as to the effect of the determination in favour of State. Purchase and Control is not altogether clear, and subsection (g) might posibly imply that the Controller has a right to select the premises i to\he bought on behalf of the Crown. Aa j however, subsections (b) (c) (d) and (e) have already provided that the premises of brewer, publican or winemaker vest in the Controller by virtue of the Act. and Section 69 definitely gives them the right to compensation/ it must be assumed that subsection (g) is intended, merely to give the Controller the right to purchase additional premises for the purposes of his business).