GOVERNMENT LICENSING BILL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2581, 6 August 1895, Page 3

GOVERNMENT LICENSING BILL.

DEPUTATION TO THE PREMIER. VIEWS OP THE TRADE. . The Premier was waited upon yesterday aftenloon by a deputation representing the New Zealand' Browers’ Association, tho members comprising it being Messrs M. Kennedy (president), H. J. Williams, W. C. Hill, T. H Barnett and C. Louisson. Mr Kennedy introduced the deputation, explaining that the Brewers’ Association desired to place before the Government their views in regard to the new Government Licensing Bill which recently passed its second reading in tho House. There were many provisions in tho Bill that appeared to ho very objectionable. Ho would not deal with these, but Mr Barnett would point! them out. There was ono clause, however, that he might refer to, viz., clause 8, or that section of it which provided that in tho case of reduction being carried tho minimum number of licenses to bo done away with was 5 per cent. In Wellington, for instance, this would mean the closing of an unreasonable number of houses. ’ The reduction, ho contended, should bo left- to the discretion of tho committee, and bo made in proportion to the number of licensed houses to tho population.

Tho Premier : What is the proportion in W«lUngton at the present .time ?. Mr- Williams; Last- census it was -621 persons-- to every- - publichouso -; it - is‘now, according to The Registrar-General's -report, 087,. Mr Kennedy went on to say that this was only a minor matter, but still one requiring consideration.- Of course it would be said that the -public were the best judges, and if they voted for reduction on tho understanding that it would reduce tho number of pubhohouses by at least !i per cent., their wishes should be given effect to. Ho did not think public opinion expressed in this way was always reliable. Some people, for' instance, would voto for reduction, expecting thereby to take away tho license from a certain hotel, whereas tho Licensing Committee might not interfere with that particular hotel at all. If the voter had known this ho would in all probability not have voted for reduction. Probably also by the time the Liquor Bill passed into law the proportion -of people to licensed houses in Wellington would' be 700 to one, the number provided in the Bill as! necessary before any increase ■' could be made, not to say anything of the floating population. Already the accommodation provided in Wellington was insufficient, and further re- ■ ductions would mean considerable inconvenience to the travelling public. If reduction was carried in this district, it would mean that at least three houses out of tho 51 in Wellington city would have to bo closed. At least this was so if the minimum was fixed at C por cent. ' j Mr! Barnett said ho would deal with the other clauses in the -Bill that tho Association objected to.- First of all, he would ,say that he, - .with some members of tho :Association, very strongly approved of the proposal to take." the liconsing-lpoll' at the sometime a» the general election. - It wasonly fair and right that the largest possible number should be brought to the poll, andtho only possible way' Of bringing; them ; there was as suggostedintheßill.lt was probable tlmt/no matter when the election was held, every'Prohibitionist would vote, and so would every member of the opposite 1 party j but of the-general'public probably' not one in five would take the trouble to vote unless tho poll wad taken tentho-day jof the general election/ -- ! J - Mr Kennedy- The Aucklnhd-branch of tho > Association are opposed to holding the licensing election on general election day., , Mr Seddon r You are divided,''then/on that question'? i Mr,Kennedy ■ Yes; ’ - ■ >• ~. ■ — Mr'Barnett, continuing, said the deputation would liko it made clear - that-in case c£ licensing ballot-papers being put into the wrong ballot-box - they would bo put into IhO right, one by the -clerk; not' after' ■ opening and looking at them, but merely -by seeing that they were of the right "dour.- 1 ' b' 1 ' .1 Mr jS’nddon': Of' course/ 1 -All papers of the,right colour will bo counted, no matter' ,whioh box’thoy are placed in. ■■ -•• ! " Mr'Barnett'said/the- next-clause they objected to was clatisKS, ipioii&mg'fpp rpduotipn be'ing’carried by 'a bare majority only. - "A three-fifths majority, he'urged; should be necessary to'Carry this p6ll, as well as the Prohibition 'polls.'The general' public did noli recognise that the carrying; of. refection iheant 'the '■destruction' of the! rightl.of property;'and (he'did not think itunreoaomible;thfe- .7 three-fifths majority: should bo required, ' ” -. (Mr! KeiinCdy contended ftfe# any pttd po?al to altoC or 'take awny tim of any ClaSs-of the community should have to bo carried by-more than a bare majority before being enforced. Mr : Barnett''also strongly urged; in -regard j(»: jthe sub-section ■ providing 'that; Jicepaco ftlforgiil fP r breaches of tho Act shall be the first,to in Cpte of a-reduo-tion poll, that' it tj/d -§&-■ crotionof tb’f Jitepsipg/eomCTirtte W ■ cide which hotel licenses shopfe he taken away. One reason for this bo pointed ’pint. •It,-Was this iln case of a’small place wher® - there; wore: four hotels—one first-class arid three iinforior.: There were numerous ways by which a "licensee might .’ have 'his licence endorsed and yet be very 1 slightly blameable fog it- Well, incase of' -a place 'like that>mentioned, might' happen that the licensee- of the-geefehetej- got his Kaepae endorsed for- so.m'e' tiwi.tfil and tiw Mousing committee, in case 1 of- jro■dnetion being tef’ri(i j/ 'jvotjd ihayd' no ,op-. tioii bnt to take inw.ay of the hotel; although it was tJm boat fp fjio .district, and this ;would : cause'/serwus' iSr convenience to-the travelling public, TJ;p question of the hotels:tb lose their licenses shoald/ lho thought, be left to the disorotidn df the ' Bench;' The - Temperance 8° far as he knew, wore indifferent - My - Jcennqdy gyk.ed that olauso 27shonld be fa ease'of the neces-' sa«y increase ofid per eeni'/jif. tJ»o population oocuwing; jpffy mfn h6T ' of licenses shonld be 'one’ .is' eyoty §i)o | tho pbpulatioii ihstddd ef fjOf).' 'ffip-'fjfipnr .tation, however/ he explained, -were not Vbcating increasee;'-',';" ' <’./ ;j In answer to a question, Mr' Seddon -cxipjlainod that clause "29 : 'meant '-that- the ,ehaK'Stllil'nud two-members''of the Licoh- ! sing Committee must each sign all applications ifor (Wnd-ittefi licenses; befdre they 1 -iwere gi'anted.' ' "said,, to ; amend • this; elanae: 'bo 'M , ’tl>' r :prpvide for some' other 'person-' signing in-thei airanpCo of the chairman.'' '• ' -1 . Sir feypott’Said'the Association would like -to flee 'BO (providing that in •ease' of; failure to lelgei-'a -committee the .Stipendiary Magistrate 'for -fep :district■ shall act as the comtaittoo) straisk Oyt, altogether/' ■' - ' o 'j .: said he had no strong feeling! in.this inatti-f/ IJo/would not dare if a' new' election was provided j&ip. of' if the appoint-' 'ment *of tho members of jtkfi ( committee required wad loft td''tb&'OttTwnnie^l| { M-jjlr Barnett hext 'drew attention -to the ' subsecfleb providing that brewers'shall hot; sell malt lj(|s)p9'in loss quantity than fouf .gallons.' 1 ThiS. thoy pointed-, out.' would' ■ only; affect :thd MnW' Wt they thought it opiy fair fsj peofttMtjjja fatter/ It would mean that all tliO jtwo'iwd'three./ - gallon! kegs would bo mndo useless, and ■besides this/there vsas’at the jireseiib time no four-gallon stamp. Tho usual quantity"Of 1 liquor bough t by ordinary customera was also a dozen bottles,which was t wd'galldfls! The, . anbEOCtfon costing tile burden r 6f- proving : Lbui a man was atraveller ” or ’ a lodgerupon' statingthat he ivas ao, they desired to jia/S altered so that tlid traveller or; lodger'woiild-;ha»'o the;onus ‘of proof cast ;upom hhh/i. ■■l , hb;lWM(.ti?s^tect''the;' ■ landlords who might be tdld custhma? that ho was a traveller/and tepeating this.; mlgbi ;7,bt be able ; to prove it. They also ■ asked that' ifhs definition of .traveller should bo fltored frpm ono who had travelled five iniles to milps. ’ ;Mr Seddott That is : a committee pbjeo--tiob. ! ' :"- 11 ■' : : , V : '' ’ ' i fb of‘clause '3l; Mr Barnett: tion the I ’nioit' *holo' clause; ;P r °- .teotion id thejy tepp^tp: breaking tho law. It apparently WO 3 intended to give the landlord power of ejegfc- ’ ment Without going to laik; but he! doubted if it'wpujd proVo-'effectivd'flS it was drawn. They dlio’ the ’subsection! amended ; so that the immediate landlord—that is to say; the" person to whom the tenant paid ' :-hi» reiitf—should have this power as well ; m fheirio»ihal dwnw* l of thd property. ! ■■ ,' Mr pointed out! in'connection' with this tUc-t Jjie nominal owner of tho • property might f« Jy )iavo only a very ■ email Interest in it.' : The was SO-' doubt meqnt to give ijm pew ( er'tney •\ 'askod-.j yheif legal adviser, however, was . doubtfut op fcj jps doing so, and they, therefore,/wanted te njafcs certain about - the matter. '; -‘' /' , ..

i, Mr Seddbh' promised to .lay the matter 'before'the law officers of tbo Crown. The Xfoyarhraerit, ‘ho explained, thought tho hoive 'right’tb’ protect himself ip ttiii jyay, as his position might to prejudiced 'ppfc ’ns' fault, of hia own. ,‘fia tie fle.Wdi jrfxexp ‘ flip landlord ‘ had tenant such' breach .sltjuld jiqt.oomo updoy tjip category cfimxp thfongh wpj<st a liqensep .was llablp to tcvso hjs ,duction being carried, ; V. 1 . ■ jilj- Barnbtt tialcGd that Some ptoteptloa should 'be provided in the .Bill against (tojants failin’g to ‘apply ; for a renewal-of . '-Mil u case- of that 1 ; kind theijandt ’b o pointed out,' jvould : be •without redress. ft F/onld also leave the diooF'Opep ,to blackmail Vftm''h&'fndjt, frcaa'pentOKial experience.' Ithad.oft<h> him J&IjQQ to gait » repewah -i “>■ ■■ i i' Mr Seddon proflrfsb/l'to give'this pjattpr ■'tisconsideration.'-' ■. Mr Barnett ashed ’what effect clause 3$ would ham" Tbi? clause mwfyi otoato

21 of the Act of last year so that nothing in that clause shall be oonstfued ■to affect or to, have affected the position ol the licenses, or any proceedings taken regarding them,, in . tho licensing - districts of Addington, Newtown and Sydenham East. Mr Barnett wanted to -know whether this would give the opportunity for the reopening of those cases. Mr! Seddon said no. It. was simply meant to . return things to.the. position they wero in before the passing of the Act of last session.

The deputation expressed their satisfaction at learning this. The deputation having nothing further to put forward, Mr Seddon replied to their various suggestions and requests. In the first place, he said, he did. not expect that the Government: Bill, would please them any more than he expected that it. would please tho extreme section of the Prohibitionists. It had been the intention of himself and colleagues in framing the Bill to frame it to suit the public opinion and to malm its provisions such as the public generally would support.. Now aa to their requests. First, the question of reduction in the number of houses. There was some force in the statement that where the number of houses is ,to be a fixed, number, such as 1 in.7UO, the question of reduction should ho loft to the committee. He did not think this unreasonable,, and when tho Bill was in. committee would not strenuously.oppose an amendment in that direction. Now ho,came tp'tiie question of. ■reduction, being ..carried by. a ,threc-;fifth3 majority. He did.nof.thinttbere- was the. slightest hope of getting that-into the Bill. They-know the temper.of the House pretty well upon the question. The House would not agree to it, but would adhere to the bare majority. In respect te, this matter, there was" also this phase of tho question—the House would probably insist bn a cumulation of the Prohibition and,reduction votes. He ! himself thought, notwithstanding this, that it was wrong to- take the votes, 'of those ,who voted for reduction and count them for Prohibition. What he believed would bo carried would ho that every person-will have three votes. That waa to say, they would be able to vote for local and colonial Prohibition and either reduction or to remain as at present—any three of th four issues put to them. Mr Barnett; That practically gives the. Temperance Party three votes to our ono. Mr Seddon said that that would be the position, and further, than that he thought an attempt might bo made to alter his Bill in committee, to make it a measure similar to that introduced on hphalf of the Prohibition Party. Regarding subsection B of section 2, clause 8, providing that the first licenses'! to go in ; case .of reduction, were the - licenses endorsed , for breaches .of the law in respect , to selling, liquor to 1 children. Native women, Sunday trading, &c., he did not think this could be expunged. It wa's'a Vefy’popular clause. The only way.kp ,amp.nd pror vide that in icaSeS'Where-'thil landlbJd te- ■ moved tho tenant for such breaches the. conviction should not count. He would sooner tha other objections they had , made to the Bill; Ho did not, however, expect them .to approve' of Ho stood between two opposing 1 parties and; had taken up a course which he considered in the interests of tho majority, and to that course he would adhere.

Mr; Barnett pointed-buKTlidt'nlthongh the depntatiori had .said,,nothing ,pn the question of Prohibition; Mr'SectdohhVeuld. no doubt understand- tfieir opposition to it Mr Seddon.- Yes.;..bu.'-.; Uein!-- b..

Mr Barnett said be desired to mention., another matter#./ It,had been stateddn - thenewspapers, and n petition/ho innderstood, had been forwarded..to the Govoroment, to' tho - effect .that. abme..Bo;.publicans of Christchurch-. had -.hold . a meeting, and! protested against/ the - system-''of-iff tio'dtiouscs,”, Ho;-wished. . to, -drawf undgr the' Premier’s Lnotioo. .. the fact J -that Only nine persons attended The meeting re- - ferred to, tliree.of. whom strongly! protested' against-the object of the meeting; three; of -' tho.. .others.; only-. i attended, i ■ out idf‘ouriosityi. and .tho -remaining three; wore the -only, ones -who favoured'■ the proposal.. ■ 1 Mr Seddon said that in respect to that question;ho; was not going to'imperil his Bill by introducing a clause into it dealing •’with tied houses. -It was amattor affecting the law of contracts, and the Legislature had to bo very;ohary-'Withiit..; .ou-.!-;! ; - - *• •■■■< My Kennedy thought -that the question of'poloniq.l Pf:ohibition' should.not be al- ■’ lov/ed to crop -up pyepy lb tee yeart-' -!; ' " " Mr Seddon, ■ joonlarty-i • Hov? riopld every. ‘Jabileo suit. ,-'-Continuing/; Ml-/ -Seddou' stronly advised the deputation that the best' Course for the;owners of- hotel■ property; to pursue was to see that dhoir tenants were thoroughly respectable men. ■ In - his opinion that would restore the confidence: of the public, which'bad been shaken by way iri which many ' of the hotels' had : Vem o.Oßj.uCte l d'iu'the' past. '.'- •Mr Kennedy siiid that the causes of many of the breaches of the Act iu tf} e past had been-a clause in leases of hotel' property which allowed' licensees to sell their interests without reference to tho ■landlord. Licensees generally sold-out at a prite with the rent made it impossible for ippopjng tenant to make things fte law. In' ,all: ncjy " 'Mm 'P.teyM#;'"' ’made ito allow tlie fandlord tp rpfpj® the > transfer' of, a 1 license •■to \an ob-; jectionable person, or at a price that would • be impossible for anyone to make things -pay/ ;■ • - 1 ; . ' Mr Seddon pointed ont' that landlords' wore only malting rods for their own bucks 'when' they, allowed- tenantsto pay prices VbljSjt. ivould make 1 it impossible for - them' to jiiako their bargain pay without breakiag tlie Taw'/- ! -1 '" tJ ‘ 'The depittation' tjtaulced MrS,eddon foR, 1 the' mapnw 'ip wljiob'he had rejjeiygd' Aiuj pjtij.dxeiy.- : '