THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1903. LICENSING AMENDMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12408, 22 October 1903, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1903. LICENSING AMENDMENT.

We do not suppose that anybody imagines that the Government seriously expects to pass through the present session of Parliament through any sessionthe singular patchwork presented to the House as the Licensing Act Amendment Bill. The fag-end of a tired session would be the opportunity to get almost any measure upon the Statute Book, but the liquor question is so contentious that even our legislators take sufficient interest in it to foredoom any such proposal as this. There are, of course, several clauses which, however much they may be debated by extremists, will have the support of the great moderate element and the approval of many supporters of the rival factions. But these clauses are entirely amendments to flaws, either verbal or practical, in our licensing system as it exists, and do not trench upon the really debatable ground. That when a licensing poll has been declared void another should be taken is only common sense. That there should be limitation upon the shifting of lapsed licenses or the issuing of new licenses is reasonable. That the sale of liquor to youths and children should be prohibited is altogether proper. That those found on "licensed premises after hours should be fined as well as the licensee is fair and in accordance with the law in England. So with similar minor ideas which have for their purpose the systematic strengthening of liquor law as it is established in this colony. But when we turn to the novel suggestions Ave can hardly dignify them by any other term —we find in them apples of discord which destroy at once any prospect of intelligent legislation, even of the carrying through of some scheme for extending the term covered by the licensing poll. With this last, very many of our readers will be in hearty accord, for fervid prohibitionists do not always consider the triennial disturbance of the country by this question as sufficiently offset by the anxiety and sense of injustice it excites throughout the " trade." But what prospect is there of seeing tins carried, or any other practical portion of the Bill ? If Mr. Seddon actually expected the measure to go through he has lost irrevocably the skill as a politician which has kept him so long in office. Considered as a draft of an impossible Bill, which will leave a contentious question much as it stands, it is worthy of preservation.

But although the Bill is not to be considered as a serious attempt at legislation, there are one or two points which call for comment. Those who would be most directly disadvantaged by its revolutionary provisions are the great number of moderates, who neither belong to the prohibitionist party nor rank with the uncompromising supporters of the trade. For some reason not quite clear the Bill which Mr. Seddon has chosen to father would drive these moderates out of existence. At present, they hold the balance of power possibly their hesitancy to use that power crushingly in a matter on which men and nations honestly differ is their offence. At any rate, it i 3 proposed to eliminate from the licensing poll the reduction question, which most keenly interests the moderates. It not infrequently occurs that the liquor trade requires restricting in certain districts. While most hotels are well conducted some are badly conducted, and it is entirely possible for the trade to be congested even where it is not generally desired to suppress it. But if we have " license" or " nolicense" as the only alternatives, the moderate protest of " reduction" will

be taken away and the fight left to the rival extremists—to those who want things left entirely as they are, and to those who want things fundamentally , and drastically altered. Nor will the moderate element be better pleased with the superficially logical proposal that where "no license" is carried no liquor, shall be allowed in the district excepting for specified medical, scientific, manufacturing or religious purposes. Even if it is logical, and this will hardly bear criticism, it is impracticable. To waste time in discussing it is to add to that wofui waste of time which is a feature of our legislative methods.

In remarkable contrast to the treatment proposed for the citizen who carries a pocket flask into a " no-license" district, or the resident who allows a decanter on his sideboard, is the Japanese-like consideration extended to the tourist we delight to welcome. He is to carry a special permit and to be supplied with his accustomed brands at Governmental establishments, where even to the officials the liquors in question are legallywhich is not saying practically We do not trace in the thoughtful provision made for the tourist, who might almost be expected to do at Rome as the Romans, that stem logic upon which Mr. Seddon so triumphantly prides himself in his " no-license-no-grog." Nor is the logic evident in the provision that illicit liquor may be sold for the benefit of the local hospital, or in the attempt to break the " tied house" system in a Bill which definitely attaches license to premises for a term of years, in consideration of improvements made, and whose every clause unavoidably reflects the industrial conditions under which the trade is now necessarily carried on. But Mr. Seddon might reply, and probably would if he were frank, that it does no harm to propose what there is neither intention nor expectation of carrying. Which is a very great mistake, for these illusive proposals and the discussions on them tend to make still more bitter the dispute which already takes up far too much of the national energies. Instead of helping us to reach a more permanent basis, such impossible Bills make confusion worse confounded and encourage the irreconcilable elements in the belief that no middle course between them is possible.