LICENSING DEFENDED

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7976, 6 December 1911, Page 8

LICENSING DEFENDED

AN HISTORIC REVIEW LICENSE v. NO-LICENSE. THE CASE FOK THE HOTELKEEPER. So much is written, and spoken in the support of No-license, and bo little is heard against it, that the triumph of Prohibition is predicted within the near future, and a hymn of victory has already been intoned in tho Nq-licenso camp. In tho other camp is it timidity, or want of organisation, or discouragement, that hardly any effort is mad© to defend the existing incensing system. Is License then such an evil, us to find no advocate? Is the sense of fair-play so dead in New Zealand as. to leave no desire of hearing something in favour of Moderation ? ’'Hear botu sides of the question/" is the motto of every friend of Justice. Tho attack on the present licensing S3 r stem is fierce and frequent, hence the necessity of a defence. PROHIBITION AN ANCIENT FAX). Prohibition has been a popular idol before now. It was set up in the third century of the Christian era by a Persian oi the name of Manes. Having read the Gospel, Manes gave himself as the promisea Paraclete, and founded a system of doctrine known as Mauicheism. Besides other eccentricities he condemned. the use of wine and advocated tho abolition of marriage. His disorder's made him so odious in Persia, that Ji© was arrested, and.skinned alive in A.i). ML His system survived him. in the tiurd century, the Mauicheans were so troublesome that the Koman Theodosius, would not tolerate them in the towns of the Empire. The Turks became disciples of Manes on one point: viz., absolute prohibition? Has this observance acquired for them, their well known ferocity against Christianity? Prohibitionists, accept good advice, —choose better company. Tho system of Manes manifested itself .through the middle-ages by several sects ; the Woldeuses, tho Cathans, the Albigenses and other forms of anarchism and hooliganism in those days. Bloodshed and ruin marked their steps through several countries. The force of arms became an imperious necessity to check their aims, and crusades were organised to repress them. NEW POEM OF STATE INQUISITION.

The advocates of No-license condemn the use of intoxicating liquor in all its forms. They appeal to the law through tho electors, to prohibit its manufacture, its sale, its introduction into tho country. They make odious the possession of liquor by subjecting it to a declaration to the Court. This declaration means that anyone obtaining liquor is a suspicious character, to be watched closely. The eyes of the Law are upou him. If wine is needed for religious purposes —as it is in fact —a kind of permission is required from the State, the quantity and purpose must be made known to the Court. A new form of State Inquisition is thus set up to obtain infolmation on what everyone is permitted to drink. Again, suppose National Prohibition carried, it will be a breach of the Law to possess liquor except for religious and medicinal purposes. To taste it, to offer it to a friend, will be a crime to be punished as the Law directs. These methods form a code of tyranny un.bearable to people claiming a grain of selfrespect and a remnant of oommonsenso. Such legislation is contradicted by AN ETERNAL TRUTH which no apiount of loud-trumpeting, drum-boating or no feat of acrobatic oratory on the platform or in the pulpit will ever alter, and this precious eternal truth is this: “THE MODERATE USE OP LIQUOR IS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.’' If the moderate use of liquor is cried down as a sin. those who know better should cry louder: "It is no sin at all.” As it is no sin, any sane person has the clear right to use liquor with moderation, he should not be _ blamed for it, and any attempt at robbing him of that right is an insolent attack on individual liberty. ’ , No doubt total abstinence is more perfect and safer, but this is beside the question. Perfection is no obligation, Eerfection cannot be commanded. Soriety is commanded, and moderation is sobriety. To compel multitudes to be total abstainers is to raise this protest; “No thank you, we know what we are doing, allow us the use of reason ou that point; as long as we keep within the bounds of moderation - we are within our rights, and you, moralists without a sound notion of morality, overstep the mark by interfering -with us. Mind your own business. Leave us alone.” FEARS OF RELIGIOUS PERSECU-. TION. There is more than the right of using wine with moderation, there is the obligation of using it for religious purposes, and that obligation has been laid on. all Christians by Christ ■ Himself in these words said at the Last Supper: “This do as a commeration of Me.” This usage of wiue is observed by the Catholic clergy during the Mass, and the Mass is an essential part of Divine Worship for Car thoiics. Whatever may be the theories of certain Divines pretending to erudition and stating that the wine used in Judea in the time of Christ was unfermented, the fact remains that, from time immemorial down to the .present fermented wine is used for Hass. An ounce of experience may dispense with tons of useless erudition on this point. Unfermented wiue soon becomes sour and unfit for use. As Mass is celebrated frequently and everywhere wine must be procured. Placing obstacles to the possession of wine is equivalent to interdicting the Mass or making its celebration very difficult. The law at present provides that wine can be obtained for religious purposes. How long will this guarantee last? The authors of this promise may withdraw • it, if an excuse is found. Behold the conscience of the Catholic people at the mercy of a vote of Parliament or at the mercy of a majority who object to the Mass and regard it os an act of idolatry. Prohibition with regard to wine may lead to prohibition of the Mass at a future date. Religious persecution may come in through the Prohibition door. CHEMISTS AS VENDORS OF ALCOHOL. Again liquor is necessary in medicine. On this point the liberty of the art of heading is safe. Chemists will have the monopoly of the liquor traffic. Those who know human nature may guess the multiplication of toothaches, headaches, heartaches, colics, shivers, queer feelings, fainting fits, etc., but is it consistent to settle upon chemists rights which are denied to hotelkeepers, without placing upon the chemists the burdens placed upon hotelkeepers, namely, the duties of accommodating the travelling public with board and lodging? In the language adopted by No-license advocates, the liquor traffic would seem to be a plague of society.. That is the abstract way to put it. The concrete way to say the same thing, is to denounce hotelkeepers as the vampires of the people and make them responsible for every case of drunkenness. Now are they so bad as that? ROBBING THE HOTELKEEPERS. Any person of average will appreciate the difference between CAUSE and OCCASION. He will understand that an open bar may bo the OCCASION of a person entering it. and obtaining there more drink than is good for him. But the CAUSE of excessive drinking, where is it? Nowhere else than in the person who drinks; he, and he alone is to blame and should he punished. Apart from the case of too much liquor being taken under the eyes of the hotelkeeper —for in that instance, the publican should interfere and prevent excess — hotelkeepers are no more responsible for the sin of drunkenness than the rope-

maker is for the suicide of the selfmurderer wko hangs himself. Cb-Wius s soli poison and are exempt from blame if that poison, is abused. Publicans sell drink and are blamed for those who abuse it, the sins of all the drunkards are laid upon their shoulders, 1 his is unjust. Public feeling is seldom the outcome of sound reason. Calm reason tor-, bids the suppression of what may be lor some an occasion of sin, if by removing that occasion, the rights and legitimate liberties of others are violated. -By c l°®" ing the hotels you may prevent a lew sins of drunkenness but you rob thousands of people of their right to obtain drink and to use it in moderation. You rob the hotelkeeper of the acquired right of selling it. There is no sense ot justice in suck a measure. The right of purchasing drink creates a social need, that of licensed houses where liquor may be purchased. Hence the liquor traffic. Liquor being subject to abuse, its sale requires supervision and control; this is obtained by the Licensing system. Committees are appointed to judge the fitness of applicants-for the profession of hotel-keeping.. Licensed premises are .open' to police inspection, frequent reports are forwarded, the searching eye of the public is open, and a correct estimate of the conduct of hotels is formed at once.

OBLIGATIONS OP HOTELICEEPKRiS. Is there any other trade offering the some guarantee of honest management? As a matter of fact, whenever a publican commits a breach of the law, not only everybody know© it, but everybody's wife and children speak of it, and the careless or law-breaking licensee loses hie best customers first, and his license next/ and all say, '‘Quite right." So the/publicans who would not be' honest by principle are really compelled by law to carry on their trade on straight Lues. Not a few engaged In the, liquor traffic are - men. aud women of high character, to associate with them is no disgrace. Many are noted for being obliging and kiadhearted. If they expect a return of good service, they have that failing in common with the rest of manhood, and email blame to thorn for it. Let the same supervision be applied to all other trades, and which would escape? Everything taken into consideration, there is no trade where honesty and straight dealing are more essential to success than in hotel-keeping, and those engaged m the liquor traffic are no more plagues of society than those engaged in other trades, and if plagues they be, one can easily avoid contagion. Let those who consider publicans as dangerous characters keep at a distance from them and their houses, they will then, escape contamination. Being so clean in their own persons they should give up the occupation of mud-throwing at hotelkeepers, brewers, and other useful and respectable citizens. Now,

DOES THE LICENSING SYSTEM EN-

COURAGE’INTEMPERANCE ? Neither directly nor indirectly. Directly, the system provides drink for those who want it, , that's all. indirectly, it discourages intemperance, by placing upon it the check of publicity; any oxcess in drink comes under the notice oi the police and is punished, in fairly Quick time. Any person unfit to. be supplied, with drink is duly prohibited. Under No-license the check of publicity is removed, drink is smuggled in large quantities and intemperance obtains impunity. It leaves the street corner, but hides itself in other comers where neither the police nor decent people can penetrate, and intemperance is perfectly safe under the cloak of Prohibition. Such is the reason why gaols are empty in prohibition districts. They are empty not because there is. no drunkenness but because excessive drink succeeds in _ hieing itself. Is that a wholesome state or affairs? Public morality does not consist in affording a safe shelter, to. vice, but in unmasking it and punishing it with due severity. Under Incense, is temperance reform impossible? Not at all. The blessings of total abstinence are numerous and give a large held, ot labour to the temperance advocate, and the advantages of a voluntary total abstinence pledge are such as to oner strong protection to those who need reformation. Unfortunately the good to be obtained bv voluntary pledges and temperance aseciations is lost eight of by temperance workers. True reformers are zealous and patient, and treat every case with the skilful tact of Christian charity. .Instead of adopting that method, Prohibitionists, claiming every power over everybody's soul and body, fulminate a wholesale excommunication against all drinkers, without distinguishing between the right use of liquor and its abuse, ihey/ punish the innocent for the sins of the intemperate. Are New Zealanders such hopeless drunkards as to be placed under the ban of prohibition. Before the world. New Zealand,, is to be proclaimed a country of incorrigible drunkards. I & , ev -? r ? New Zealander going abroad to be hailed by foreigners as a prohibited pere™ l / Every vote in favour of national prohibition is an absurd lie and n_ insult to New Zealanders, ttiil it wa healthy state of society when m New Zealand liquor will be owned by three classes of people, by chemists for the sick by clergymen for churchgoer, and by smuggled for the whole Public. May the electors preserve the honour of their country and. save their personal social, and religious liberty when they record their votes.