LICENSING LEGISLATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12408, 22 October 1903, Page 6

LICENSING LEGISLATION.

THE NEW BILL.

OPINIONS IN AUCKLAND.

INTERVIEWS WITH BREWERS AND

PROHIBITIONISTS.

The summary of the provisions of the new Licensing Bill in yesterday's Hxhaid was read with a great deal of interest by those connected with tlie trade, by the advocates of no-license, and by the general public. A representative of the Herald waited upon some of the representatives of {he two parties during the day and elicited some expressions of opinion from each point of view regarding the new measure. THE TRADE VIEW OF THE BILL. A prominent member of the trade, speaking on behalf of the brewing interests, expressed himself as keenly disappointed with the measure as a whole.

" I admit," he said, " that whilst there are clauses in the Bill which would seem to relievo somewhat the very heavy strain under which the trade has laboured for some years past, this advantage is more than, counterbalanced by some of the other provisions embodied in the measure. No; the Bill is not what we had hoped for, and I for one am greatly disappointed with it. We, as a body, earnestly thought that there was such strong public feeling in favour of eliminating' the liquor question from political issues fcr one election at least that tho Government would have boldly proposed making the term to elapse between the local option elections to be six years. The absence of this proposal from the Bill wo view as a regrettable omission. All the other proposals that take the form of relieving legislation are mere trifles so far as the trade is concerned, when compared with the extension of the local option periods. Tho elimination of the reduction \ote was made at the request or both the prohibition party and the trade, but the new Bill provides for the 'straight-out' issue of licenses or no-license. Most of the proposed amendments seem to me to be suggestions emanating from the nrohibition party." " But you must admit? that the provision that where a hotel had coat £3000 or over such improvements having been effected on the mandate of the licensing committee, that a six years' tenure is provided, although ' nolicense' may _ have been carried in the district meantime, is a favourable concession to the trade?"

" That, I would point out, will apply largely to Wellington more than, to anywhere else. It will hardly touch Auckland, where improvements have been effected in the past, and, consequently, the Bill only referring to ' improvements that have been effected since last June,' Auckland improvements will not come within the provisions of, this particular clause. No; I would repeat that what I feel myself, and what other members of the trade feel with mo, is that the Bill is a very disappointing one so far as we are concerned." OPINIONS OF NO-LICENSE ADVOCATES

MR. R. FRENCH,,

Mr. R. French, chairman of the Auckland Prohibition League, when waited upon stated that as tho Bill had not yet been discussed by his league, ho was not in a position to give any official expression of opinion, and that therefore any statements made by him must bo taken only as an indication of his personal views on the subject. In regard to the first clause of the Bill, as given in the Premier's summary, viz., that of the deletion of the reduction issue, Mr. French said:

" I think that until the majority necessary to secure no-license is reduced to a bare majority, or to a working majority, the reduction clause should be retained, because in a great many instances reduction is equivalent, or practically equivalent to, prohibition. Take the Grey Lynn electorate, for instance. At the last poll the carrying of reduction meant practically prohibition, as the one hotel now left in the district is at the extreme end of it, and if reduction were again carried in this district, it would, of course, amount to absolute prohibition." The provision for a fresh poll in a case in which a poll has been declared void was referred to with approval by Mr. French, who pointed out, however, that this was already provided, for in Sir Joseph Ward's Regulation of Local Elections Act Amendment Bill. In any case, he considered the present requirement of half the persons on the roll voting in order to secure a valid poll, and which was re-embodied in Sir J. Ward's Bill, should be abolished. Five or ten years ago, when the first vote on the question was taken, Mr. French continued, it might have been argued that such a stipulation was necessary, but there was no necessity for it now, seeing tho keen interest that was taken in the prohibition movement. The fact that a majority of 3000 people in the colony voted in favour of nolicense at the last election was cited by Mr. French as a proof that the question is a very live one.

" How do you view the proposal to render persons liable to a fine of £20 for having liquor in their possession?" " I object to that, on the ground that the prohibition movement seeks to deal with the public sale of liquor. I think that, under any circumstances, a private individual would have the right, if he thought fit, to manufacture liquor for consumption by himself or his family. Regarding the proposed referendum on the question of extending the local option term from three to six years, Mr. French said: — " Of course, I would be opposed to any extension of the time, but it would be only fair, if such a referendum were taken, to require a three-fifths majority for the carrying of tho proposed extension." As to the clause relating to the constitution of licensing committees, Mr. French said he could see no reason for the appointment of ex officio members, with the exception of stipendiary magistrates. Of course, he said, persons engaged in the trade should not bo eligible to occupy scats on a committee, but he could see no crround for a violation of the secrocv of the ballot by a-kimr a person how he had voted before allowing him to become a member. The reference to prohibitionists in this connection he thought amounted to that. He did not approve of tho proposal to extend the present quarter-milo radius in respect to the shifting of licenses, and he considered that the nresent clause shouM be retained and made legally effective. He agreed with the clause providing that liquor should not be sold to persons under 18 years of age, and as to tho proposal to render persons found on licensed premises after hours amenablo to punishment; he said he was surprised that this had not been enacted years ago, seeing that the police had so often asKed for it. " What of the proposal to give an extended tenure, in the event of no-license being carried, to hotels on which £3000 had been expended in improvements?" "Well, if the bona-iide business of the house, viz., the accommodation of travellers, warranted such an outlay, no extension of time would be required, as such business would always remain. Tnere is an anomaly here, as it is proposed in a previous clause to debnr persons from having liquor in their I procession, and yet it is here proposed to male! it possible for a hotel to remain open in a district in which no-license had been carried! The only assumption from this seems to be that only a bar trade would be permitted." Mr. French agreed with the proposed ac-commodation-houses for tourists, but Lei that they should have nothing to do with tho sale of liquor. He thought the one-license-one-bar principle should be adopted, that committees should have discretionary power in regard to the hour of closing, and that the compulsory half-holiday should also apply to liquor bars. As to the King Country, Mr. French contended that no commission was required, but that it was the bounden duty of the Government to make prohibition, effective there in accordance with the agreement with the natives. This could be done, he said, by bringing clause 33 of the Licensing Act into operation, and thus give the police power to deal j with tho sending of liquor into the King i Country.

MR. WESLEY SPRAGG,

Mr. Wesley Spragg, another prominent member of the no-license party, ou being interviewed, willingly stated his views, but said that he had not had an opportunity of consulting the other members of the party, who would, therefore, not be committed in any way by his expressions. On being invited to speak on the provisions of the new Bill, Mr. Spragg said:—■ "I am of opinion that there is not at present any demand, other than that suggested by the trade itself, for any new licensing legislation. The Bill to amend the Regulation of Local Elections Act covers almost everything that is needed to make the present legislation workable. That, further legislation should be attempted at this late stage of the session is, from the general public's standpoint, unreasonable. All the important measures suggested by the Bill are in the interests of the trade, and the little bits given to the general public are sops and make-believes. In brief, it is a liquor measure thinly sugar-coated in order to make the public, if possible, believe that it is something else." On being questioned as to the details of the Bill, Mr. Spragg said: — "I think the existing reduction clause should be left alone, for while in some districts its value is not as great as in others,

it* general effect is to clean up and sweeten things. There is no reason, except the trade reason, for interfering with the reduction issue. The clause which imposes a penalty on persons having liquor in their possession in prohibited districts is intentional 'cussedness' on the part of Mr. Seddon. Its object is to coerce the many ' moderates' who have shown that they resent the aggressiveness and destructiveness of the traffic. It is "not asked for by the uo-license people, ■who generally believe in individual liberty, but who "at the Eame time believe that no man should bo allowed,to tempt another to his hurt, and who desire to shut the public bars in order to remove temptation from the young people of the colony." Speaking of the proposed referendum a3 to the terms between the polls, Mr. Spragg said he considered this right in principle, but the form in which it appeared in the Bill was wrong. "Considering," he said, "the result of the last poll, when 34electorates gave a majority in favour of nolicense, and when the colony as a whole gave the same result, the question, if one is to be submitted, should fairly be as to whether the poll should not be taken every year. Personally, I do not think that even this is needed! The present provision for three years is working very well, and nothing but a desire to destroy the existing salutary law is actuating the movers in this,matter." In noticing the other clauses, Mr. Spragg unfavourably criticised the proposal as to the constitution of licensing committees. " The exclusion of persons who have opinions and principles but no direct monetary stake in' tbo retention or abolition of the drink traffic has much to condemn it, and nothing to recommend it. The stronger a man's opinions are upon the prohibition question the more definitely will his election express the will of the people If the people want no-license then a no-license committee should represent that sentiment; and if tney wish the licenses then a committee favourable to license should reflect that desire. The only bar to election should be pecuniary interest on either side. Ido not think that, this clause will become law. "The next absurd provision," continued Mr. Spragg, "is that an expenditure of £3000 shall give a certain six years' tenure to licenses. This clause would have the effect, and it is clearly intended to have such effect, of establishing licenses in defiance of the public will. If it should become law, an expenditure equal to £500 a year would nullify the public mandate. The thing is monstrous. The liquor traffic, during the past nine years, has been plainly told by the increasing no-license vote that its tenure is not a permanent one, and that its yearly permit to sell liquor is certain soon to be refused. To suggest the terms of this clause is to insult democracy; it means that the brewers, and not'tho people, are intended to rule the colony." Continuing, xVlr. Spragg: said:—"The provision for allowing tourists to purchase liquor in no-license districts would afford a legal cloak for and would foster sly grogselling. On the face of it it is a direct betrayal of tho people to the traffic. Oil the other hand, it is an insult to a colonist to give a tourist preference of any kind over him. I admit the value of tourists' visits, but the average colonist is many times more important to New Zealand than the average tourist, and he should not bo insulted by having the dirty end of any preference clause extended to him. Imagine the tourist, whether worthy or unworthy, having tho legal right to purchase liquor in a prohibited district, whilst it was a crime for a colonist merely to have it in his possession. It will very much surprise me if the House does not, in the plainest possible manner, say that this Bill has not been called for by the country, and that it will not be supported by the people's representatives."