ABUSE IN WINE-SELLING

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7868, 2 August 1911, Page 6

ABUSE IN WINE-SELLING

There seems to be no reason to doubt that a very objectionable state of affairs prevails in districts north of Auckland and that the la-w should he amended to prevent the abuses complained of by the deputation which waited upon the Acting-Minister for Justice yesterday afternoon. Apparently the methods pursued by a number of vignerons amount to more or less open sly grog-selling, with its inevitable accompaniments of inferior liquor and degradation. The Minister seems to have satisfied, himself of the necessity for grappling with this abuse, and promises to draft an amendment of the law for consideration of Parliament. If people who manufacture wine are to be exempt from penalties' against adulteration and are allowed to peddle their compounds over wide districts there is no reason to be astonished if the consequences are unpleasant. Such conditions are in themselves an incitement to practices of the worst possible kind, and may even bo regarded as a convenient cloak for illicit trading. Indeed, tho step from peddling wine to peddling brandy —vile of their kind most likely—would be easily taken. The remedy for all this may not be so simple as might be

imagined, but the public in the districts complained of and everywhere else would certainly gain immensely if tho law against adulteration were made general and effective. If the people north of Auckland who buy these “ wines ” were getting tho real juice of the grape the trouble, as one of yesterday’s deputation observed, would not bo so serious. Tho light wines of New Zealand make neither for drunkenness nor to any such demoralisation as another of the speakers referred to. With a stricter anti-adulteration law, a compulsion upon wine-makers to keep for inspection records of manufacture and sale and a restriction upon “peddling” the gross evils now spoken of would obviously be minimised. It is not quite clear what tbo deputation meant by suggesting that wine-makers should only bo allowed to sell to “ licensed persons,” but wo assume that holders of hotel licenses are referred to. The idea may have something to commend it, but just ait the moment wo cannot see that it would help anybody. Tho question naturally arises why a person who desires to purchase a gallon or so of wane should not be able to deal with tho maker without the intervention of a third party to the transaction. There is really no more reason why a citizen should be prevented from buying wine from a vigneron than be prohibited from getting beer from a brewer. It is a little hard to understand the request on thjs point from such a stalwart opponent of ‘license ” as Mr Dawson. However, tho correction of very positive abuses is the main question just at present, and we hope to see tho Minister bring these peddlers of bad liquor to their hearings, atid thus protect tho community in which they operate. There is a vast, difference between stopping this wretched trade and allowing the people reasonable freedom to obtain locally-made i vinos of undoubted purity. The difference is the margin which exists between debauchery and sobriety.