LIQUOR LAW REFORM.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4227, 7 October 1874, Page 3

LIQUOR LAW REFORM.

EDITED BY TUB HON. WILLIAM FOX, 1f.H.8. [The Editor of this journal is not responsible for tho opinions iierein expressed. Tho column is solely under the charge of its special Editor.] MR. VOGEL'S FALLACIES ON THE LIQUOR LAW. Mr. Vogel's speeches on the late Licensing Amendment Bill, are so full of stale and transparent fallacies, that in criticising them one hardly knows which to select. The solf-coii-tradictory propositions, tho inconsequential conclusions, and tho dragging of red-herrings across the scent are so numerous, that one has only to open Mansard at any page filled by the lion, gentleman's arguments—if we may call them so—to find a dozen illustrations. "Oil that mine enemy would write a book." Mr. Vogel lias not written a book on the Liquor Law; but he has made speeches, and Hansard lias reported them, and that will do quite as well. In a former article, we exposed his allegation that the extent of drinking habits is exaggerated by the teetotallers, and the extreme simplicity of the argument by which he supported his position, namely, that if anyone walks abroad, he will not find five persons out of every hundred who have ever been drunk in their lives, or one in every hundred who is a confirmed drunkard. But, if the argument is ridiculous, as we shewed it to be, the conclusion he draws from it is still more so. " Therefore," he says, " wo ard dealing with a question which affects not the majority but the minority, and such being the case we ought to be very cautious in any steps we take." Here is reproduced the threadbare fallacy that the drinking habits of the day only concern the individual who indulges in them. Mr. Vogel entirely forgets the fact that all the gaols of

the country are filled by the drinking habits of the people, that the bulk of the inhabitants of the lunatic asylums came there through drink, and that nearly all the pauperism, distress, and social evil of the country originate in drink. Now, who suffers from this ? Why every taxpayer in the country ; every employer of labor ; every colonist in some shape or other. Are these in a minority or a majority? Again, he puts aside the fact altogether that the question is not whether drinking by individuals shall be allowed, - but whether the establishment of public-houses shall be allowed, or rather by whom the question of their establishment shall be settled in each district. This transparent fallacy runs through all. that Mr. Vogel says. He assumes that the advocates of the Permissive Bill seek to interfere with the private action of 'the individual drinker. They do nothing of the sort. What they propose is simply that the power which has till a year ago been vested in any two Justices of the Peace, and is now vested in a Licensing Board of three Government nominees—the power of withholding a license from any applicant who wishes to have a public-house—should be vested in twothirds of the residents of the district, and not in the Justices or Licensing Board. Mr. Vogel charges Mr. Pox with tyranny in his proposals. How is there more tyranny in vesting this power of withholdiwj a license in two-thirds of people than there is in vesting it in two Justices or a Licensing Board of three, nominated by the Government, and not representing anybody but themselves ? This is tyranny, if you like ; that three individuals should be able to set down a public-house in the midst of 3000 or 30,000 persons without asking their consent; and certainly it is a question which concerns, not the minority, as fallaciously alleged by Mr. Vogel, but the vast and overwhelming majority, the whole of the people of the district concerned, and by its consequences the whole of the people of the Colony. In an earlier part of ■ the debate Mr. Vogel says, " Hon. members must recognise that the endeavor to shut up public-houses by the use of the permissive clauses had not succeeded. The practical working of the Act had showed that a proper licensing system should not go in that direction, but should rather be in the direction of judiciously limiting the number of, and controlling, licensed houses." This is one of the Belf-contradictory utterances to which we alluded. How can the number of publichouses be. " judiciously limited," except by closing existing ones, and refusing licenses for new ones? Yetwhatrnoredoesthepermissive clauses of last year's Act propose than to enable this to be done ? The thing Mr. Vogel says ought to be provided for, is the very thing that the permissive clauses. do provide for —" the judicious limiting " of the number of publichouses. The real point at issue is -quite different ; it is who shall be the judge of what is "judicious" limitation, Mr Vogel says " Three nominees of the Government"; Mr. Pox says, " The people immediately affected by the establishment of the public-houses in question; the people who live in the district where the public-house is to be." Is there any tyranny in two-thirds of them being permitted to settle this question according to their own wishes ? • - As to the assertion made by Mr. Vogel that the permissive clauses of last year's Act had failed, Mr.. Pox replied fully to that; but it was in committee, and the debates in committee are not reported in Hansard, so the reply does not appear. Mr. Vogel had previously asserted that the administration of the measure had given the Government a very large amount of • trouble. Mr. Pox's reply was, that the failure of the Act was owing mainly to the manner in which the Government had administered it. He knew, he said, several' districts where it would have been put in force if the action of the Government had not prevented it. The great impediment was the absurd size of the licensing districts, which rendered it impossible for volunteer action to put the prohibitory clauses in operation. The cause of this was that the Government had left it solely to the Resident Magistrates to define the districts,.' and they had done so in a manner which was certain, if it was not intended, to defeat the Act. The Government issued its proclamation so late that there was no time for protest by the public, nor for any alteration if they had protested. As regarded the trouble the Government pretended to have taken in the matter, it was a mere sham. One circular had been printed and sent to the Resident Magistrates, requiring them to suggest boundaries and names of members of Licensing Courts. Their recommendations were in almost every instance at once adopted, and this was all that the Government did. One or two magistrates who asked for the opinion of the Attorney-General for their guidance, were told they could not have it. The whole file of papers, including all the correspondence with the magistrates, were, on Mr. Pox's motion, laid on the table, and they went into one medium-sized official envelope. A single smart clerk, working an hour a day for three months, could, he was certain, have done all tliat had been done by the Government in the matter; and he concluded by repeating the charge that the failure of the Act was mainly owing to the manner in which the Government had worked it. He had never expected its operation to be more than partial at first ; but he was certain that he could name districts in which it would have gone into operation, and with signal success, but for the ridiculously large boundaries suggested by. the magistrates, and against which the people had been allowed no opportunity of remonstrating. '