Prohibition in Clutha.

Opunake Times, Volume VII, Issue 344, 28 December 1897, Page 2

Prohibition in Clutha.

(N.Z. Times,) Mr Hawkins, Stipendiary Magistrate for the Lawrence, Milton, and Clutha districts, in a report presented to the House on Tuesday, says inter alia ; —The repressive measures and the penal enforcement of them have led to an open defiance of the law, and to a disregard of truth in the Magistrate’s Courts, the evils of which I cannot sufficiently dwell upon, and deplore. There is hardly a case which has come before me in which the defendant has pleaded “ not guilty ” in which there has not been lying in the witness-box. In some cases it is most deliberate. In all it seems to me that no odium attaches to it in the mind of the ordinary public, and that resort to any practice is deemed justifiable to defeat what is considered an unfair attempt to deprive the public of a right. The lying is becoming systematic, the points to be protected are getting clearly defined, the difficulties of prosecution are increasing, . . . . while hardly a case is heard in which the prosecution has not suggested that the witnesses for the prosecution have been tampered with, a question which I cannot deny appears to be well founded. . . . That there is a wide public sympathy with the sellers and antagonism to the informers and police is unquestionable. It appears to me that the advocates of Prohibition care nothing so long as they can keep the publichouses closed, what injury is done to the respect for law, or to the cause of morality and justice. ... I say that while attempting (for they only attempt) to cast out one devil they are bringing in several others far worse than that one. There are not only the evils I have dwelt upon, but there is dissension and ill-will and mutual distrust, and even hatred springing up in these little townships, aod growing out of this source. Mr Hawkins goes on to say practically that it is no use to order a prosecution for perjury, because it is a matter of notoriety that a conviction for perjury in such oases cannot be got out of an Otago or Southland jury. He continues :—“ Convictions for perjury are, in my judgment, never likely to be maintained as long as the fault is elevated into the dignity of an indictable offence which subjects the offender to seven years' imprisonment. . . There always remains the fact that the consumption of liquors is not; and until public opinion is totally changed, eifßniot be regarded as a malum in se, especially as

both Houses of Parliament annually pass a resolution approving the sale of liquor within the walls of Parliament itself.” A schedule submitted by _Mr Hawkins shows that since Prohibition was carried 79 informations have been laid for breaches of the liquor law at Clutha. Of these, 40 were withdrawn, 15 dismissed, 23 convictions, and the total amount of fines was £651.