SOUTH ISLAND CONVENTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2251, 22 April 1897, Page 22

SOUTH ISLAND CONVENTION.

First Day — Friday. A South Island Convention, comprising the Otago delegates and delegates from the other Prohibition Councils of the South Island, was opened on Friday afternoon in the Y. W.C.A. Rooms, and attended by nearly 100 persons. On the motion of Mr A S. Adams the Rev. A. Dawdney was voted to the chair.

The Chairman briefly welcomed the delegates, and read lotbors of apology for tho absence of the Revs. D. BDrrie and A. H. Wallace and Mr J, A. Forbes

XERISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The Chairman called on Mr J. W. Jago, who had undertaken to contribu>e a paper on the above subject.

Thn Rev. F W. Isitt (Christchurch), observing that there was a rwporter preseut, asked how far it was intended by the convention tha*; the result of its deliberatioaa should be published. In Cnristchurch thw usual practice of having the proceedings published was varied because resolutions passed oa subjects whicu came under review had to ba sent; on to t>hn central council, aud the convention in Christchurch resolved this ye*r that no result should be published until ib reached the council in Wellington. He presumod that the reporter would only have to have it intimated to him that certain subjects were not to bs r«porbed until the "final result wai arrived fit by the central council, in order to secure th*t those subjects should not bo reported. There were two aubjlcJs to be discussed that afternoon on which there would be a difference of opinion, and the reporter should not reporS except where there was unanimity.

The Rev. W. Kyd (Southland) said he would move — "Thit the reporter be asked not to report the proceedings unless specially requested by fhe chairman to do so "

Mr Jago thought that if the resolutions adopted on sneh questious as Mr Isitt had indicated were withheld from publication the end would be met."

The Rev. F. W. Isitt moved— "That no results of the discussion on subjects f (' BxcluMon of redaction vote from ballot pup^r aod restoration of committee's discretionary power') and r/ ('Da.te of local option polls') be published."

Mr A. S. Adams pointed out that the convention had no right to say to a reporter that he -should remain present and not report the proceedings, and he suggested that when the meeting reache ■ subjects f and y they should go into committee. This suggestion was adopted.

Mr Jago then read the following paper :—: —

This is the subject for discussion at this sitting of convention. I have had the task assigned me of placing before the representatives the several points to lie considered lam not to give anything like any exhaustive exposition of the suoject for discussion, but simply to indicate the lines which, in im judgment, the discussion should follow. 'The time allowed me for the accomplishment of my Task is brief, allowing but an average of thrSe minutes to each of the sub-subjects respecting which it is proposed to seek legislation. Without further preliminary observations, then, I will procte.} to deal with the several points indicated in the programme before the convention.

National Prohibition.— By this I understand the proposal to make a vigorous effort to obtain legislative provision for submitting to the vote of the whole body ot the electors the question of liquor or no liquor, not as a local but as a colonial quesbion. If such majority of the electors as the lavv may provide vote for no liquor, then so soon as> ths currency of the licenses then existing shall expire the sale of intoxicating liquors aha'l cease throughout the colony. A bill making provision for such a vote has twice passed the Lower House of Legislature, and haR been twice defeated in the Uppor House. It is proposed to urge the reintroduction of this bill and to insist on its besoming law. It i-- not intended or de«ired that this law, if obtained, shall supersede the local option law presently in operation, but that it shall be superadded thereto. The policy of local option has bpen called in question by some temperance refonneis, and that of statutory prohibition advocated in opposition. The right of the paople to legalise a wrong has been challenged, aud the duty of suppressing social evils by statute law has been strongly supported. No State, it is alleged, has a right to estab'ish iniquity by a law. A good de<il may be said in support of this position, but in these day 3 of " triumphant democracy " the idea of statutory prohibition, even if enacted by the people's representatives, is not acceptable unless such enactment is called for by the majority of the people. We here have local option, aud we propos" to keep it. The provisions for local prohibition aie, as recently stated by thd Rev. E Walker, of the New Zealand Alliance, tD a representative of the New Zealand Herald, practicall- perfect. With these it ,is not intuuded to interfere. The proviMonb fot" national option iv the Government bill of labt «Esion would meet the iequironi«nts of the case, aad it is intended, as already mentioned, to use every legitimate endeavour to g.'t the^; pioposals placed on the Statute Book and p> ovision made for bringing tben into active nwpration. The argument foi loctl option is erjiuliy valid when urged in support of national prohibition, and perhaps more so, as the latter will make th^ former more effective, a^ it will remove many of the difficulties which prevent or hinder the enforcement of tne former, and is, moreover, its logical sequence.

Majority Rule. — This is the only logical, equitable, and, iv thf) ultimate is--iiQ, ih^ o'i'y uracticab'.e rule in a democracy. When government or rul" is of th*" people, for the people, by ttie people, there can b t no ruling cla-<s to dominate 'ha masses, nor .my method by which a minority of the p^opl; shall hold sway. la tha discussions of prohibition claims hive Ijkcm -,ct up for ihe rights of the minority, .\ni doubtless minorities have rights, but the domination of the majority is not one of them. It ha-j bs^n ur"eil that in a matter which would so neatly afrccc the habits, and long established customs of individual, as would the prohibition of tli-- 'i.ivor traffic, it would I>2 juither ju-t no>- oxn-t ii.it to act on rlic vote of a narrow majority of th ; people. If the consequences of the haint and tb.<- • lucomo of the custom were of a neg*tivj or neutral character, or, being evil, wvrc cm fined iv thair operation to the individual-, md lgin;; in the-n, it might on many grounds not b. 1 exp«d'ent, enough it orient be just, for a subtt intul in qnrity of Umj people to prevent, tho^e who desaod su to i.l i to continue the habit i,r paip tuatu the r latom. Cut wnatever force there may oe in th^ arguino it, it does not apply 1o thi* ino'a>bitioniit. Fa,U, 'vhifh he pioposCi t j ren i L;- legishitio'.i is uot n habit, not a custom, but a trade— a trade which it is

already sought to regulate by law ; a trade which every civilised community has pronounced to be dangerous which, at the same Time claims to exist, not for the pecuniary benefit of the trader, but for the convenience aud physic.il beuefts of the public, but which as a matter of fact, entails on the community mauv and grievom social evil-. ; a trade, moreover, which is not open to the many, but which may be engaged in by only a few, and open to these few only as a matter of privilege, and not bee line it is their right. Besides, if the pe^le by a majority of one have not the right to suppress a trade which is admittedly antagonistic to the best interests of the State, how doe-; the increasing of the majority confer the right ? It is as though it were said a certain act done by one man would be wrong, but dove by two men it underg ies a change of moral character and beepmes right. But if the in ijority may not determine a question of the continuance or discontinuance of certain wrong-doiug against the wish or voie of the minority, hovv clous the minority obtain the right of perpetuating a great and recognised sociil evil in opposition to the wi-h or vote of a majority. It is obviously unjiiit, inequitable, and opposed to sound democratic principles that a m ijority shauld, on a question o1o 1 social importance, bs governed by a minority. The question of the continuance or suppression of run trade in intoxicating beverages is one to b** determined by the people There is not absolute unanimity oa the subject, and a votmust be taken. Shall the question bs determined by the m.vj irityor the minority ; are the majority or the minority to rule? Equity, justice, common sense, and every sound democratic principle answer, The majority.

Control of Cliins. — Another purpose the prohibitionists seek to accomplish by legislation is the bringing of the ~ala of intoxicants in clubs under the leg.il conditions which control their -.ale elsewhere. It is a sound proposition that " where there's drink there's danger " ; while all experience has proved that the sile of intoxicants wheresoever and by whomsoever carried on is fraught with serious danger to the community in which it obtains in proportion to tho facilities afforded by such sale for the consumption of the liqiu<r. TUe n.iuger arises, not from the place iv which the liquor is sold, not from the person by wh >m oi the time at which it i*» sold, but from the thing which is sold. It has been over and over shown by the reports of some of the bast conducted hu-t-allod working men's clubs that the chief purp ise for which they exist is to supply their members with facilities for ohtaining drink. We hive seen club chirter^ applied for and obtained to be rarrie i on iv recently dislioensed premises Wain the people's licensing committees have refused, in the interests of the people, to renew «oms publican's license, the dislicause publican has applied for and obtained a cluo charter over the heads ana against the wishes of the people ; and the s*le of liquor tins oeen carried on iv the club with very little, if auv, more restraint than in the sarn-i premise-i under license Trm, it is tsuppo^d that in th- 1 club only membeis are served . hue this condition is easily evaded or the tiria-i of niemborsnip made .such as to render admission to the club available to almost anyone wanting to obtain a drink. Of the evils of'ths club sy*leni much evidence has been reuenrly given before the Liquor Commission of the British Parliament presently making inquiry into the conditions, (6c , of the liquor trade in Englind. We claim that the sale of intoxicating liquors i" clubs .shou d be brought under popal.ir control and bs in ide subject to the conditions of the licensing or other laws mide for tho regulation, restraint, or prohibition of t*ie sale of alcoholic liquors, and b3 subject, as other liquor shop^ are, to the surveillance of the police. It is claimed that the club is a private institution, and should ba as sacred from iutrusion as one's private house. But intoxicants are not sold in private home-;, tior is the homy se' u-p to afford facilities for th^ inpply ot strong drink ij-si. the club bs confined to the function 1 ; of the home, expel the drink trade, and c'-aijjto offer lacili'ies for and inducements to drinking, and itnuy then claim aud enjoy immunity from outside interference.

licensing Revenue to be Made Colonial. — The object) sought to be obtained by this proposal is the removal from local bodies of the temptation to encouiage th- granting of licenses an i the continuance of the liquor tnffic for the sake of the lican.se ffe*, which an* now local revenue That the license tees are now an important ltoni of local revenue iv many cases there can be no doubt. Nor can there be any doubt that this fact is m-ide the most of m local option contests It is important that this temptation to the adcx>tiou of a very short-sighted policy should be removed, and this would be accomplished were the licen-iing revenue made colonial If this is not done then the charge t>r the polics piote^tioa tendered nesessary by the granting of licensee saould be rua'ie aeainst the local body instead of being as it now is— a charge on the colony.

Experience has abundautly prove i that licenses for the salf of liquor must be iiccoinpaflied or followed by the appsintua-nt of ono or more policemen to watch the conduct of tha licensee or look after his customers. It is clearly unjust that a non-license district should he taxed to pay for the |>o'ie- protection afforded to * licensed district wnile the latter uockuts the revenue from granting of the license which rendors th-: expenditure ou ths police n-jcessary The revenue obtained from liquor licenses, like that derived from liquor duties, should go tn defray ths expenditure of the State on the maintenance of the many institutions, which will be at once suggested to members of convention, rendered necessary by thd existence uf thai traie frnm which the revenue i* derived. In order to do this, we propose that legi-l.itive provision h-> made whereoy licensing revenue will be made colonial. ,

Bottle Licenae? to be Abolished.— This proposal needs no argument. It has been already conceded. I'iovision for the abolition of the bottle license his beea made, but has for Fome reason discoverable only to the prying eye of the lnwyer proved futile This liceniy hai been operative only in the Qtag > and Southland and the Nelson Provincial districts, and all that is necessary now is that. thep.ovi«o!i in the Licensing Act for its discontinuance in the3e districts should be made effective.

Exclusion of Reduction Vite from Ballot Paper and Restoration of Committee's Ducretionsry I'ower.— ifere are two distinct proposals. (1) The exclusion -of the reduction vote from the ballot piper, and (2) the restoration of thi committee's discratiouarv power Either of these may be ad >ptsd without \.he other, but the prop .sU submitted to this convention is that thd adoption of tue one should bs dependent on the adoption of tin; other. Ju iging from the recent poll reduction is practically a d':u/l ibsuo The question in whnh the ponple take a living int'irest i-> license or id licen.iO, hqnor or no liquor. This should ))0 the only i^ue submitted to th° puopie. If no lic^n^o, which should metn no liquor, is carried, thsro should b» an cud of tin* whole business, thereafter no sals of intoxicmt j"vei\igo< being parniilt-'d. If on llie other haud license is carried, then t"i),<- who desiie the perpetuation of tho traffic should alacA. a committee to c»iry out and give effect to their wiihe^ a> tj the extent ti which the trada should be reduced or extended as thevj may be exyro'Kijd m the election of th'j committe''. t'rolnlikionists fC3nerally h iv.j little faith i>i the b-n'jfifia! results of a vote for ruduction. When t,'iv-r> eftVot to it is usually done by lefunug to ivn-\v licenses to somii of the ho'iio, in a c:m<jt;-,;.e'l uuifflibiurliood Tins doe- not nn.tori.illy afF^co lii • facilities for obtaimnj; drink ; it only inr-oises thu bnsiiiLM, of the lu'iiii'inu nnM.es, and make's the license to t'.etn of greater value, if shoe are two liou^e?, each isolate! at -i nile di^t-itit from eaih other, and oae*f the c c 13 di-hc»ifsed, soiii" k irrl m.iy I>j effected, »^ thy fa :ilities for nbl-un'iig drink will ]>a greatly lciiieu I, and a consider iole m^^sure of prohibitioi. introdiu"j'l to the tooilir-/. I'hfi'i the reduction vole i* euiSana'-aini: an ■ diJtr-cincf. Ft d)iWj away aM'int'i'i an ', -i-rio'i-- <• jum'Uvi.iou fi'Tin the ie il is.ivj of tho ii^h' It rrtli^ves tlip CTnscieuce- of th i r ': m. t-heAi^ed reformers, who a'e ut^e-lv di-,sai i^.ie i with thing-) a*- thay are, 'out iind a nunibir of PXju^es for n j- a'iop in^ ttieextr-me (a-5 ti cy call ir.) measure of pro'iihitioti. It moets I'm; ':a-e of tlio^e who are ovur .-.avi:>3 that " toinetninq" inu->t \>i ilon», !>nf who shrink from ilohij the otilv thin^ worth (loins. Ib, in fact, has prnei ic^elf to be ''a ninclcery, delu-ion, an'! >i snaiv," and thu nnvunt-on is urgt- 1 to have it removed from the hallo and the discretional power of the com ojitti;e3 reatored.

I The Dite of Local Option Polls.— This offers no sugge-tion, makes tn> proposal. Ib is simply named as a poiut for discussion. Should the local option poll ba taken on th 4 day of the general election or have a day set apart for itself ? The experience of the recent elecoion appears to me to suggest the desirability of having a day set apart , for the local option poll, especially should this be I done if the uational option is to be ••nrnhined with | local option. The issue is of sufficient import- ! ance to demand a day for its determination, unaffected by complications with other political questions. It has long been felt that the mixing I up of the temperance question with general or local politics is much to be deprecated. Those I who are interested specially in p ilitic3, as well as those who give to liquor legislation and temperance reform the manner place, desire_ to keep the issues apart. Th - temperance quebtion nhould be above party, und -.hould be a first consideration with s ocial refo mers of all political parties. The prohibition leaders have endeavoured i to keep their^'followera free from party complications, but the expaiicnce of Great Britain and i the UnitiidStatf s emphasises the lessons of our own ! vecentgeuer.il election — *;hatit is impossible to do this when great political questions come into im1 mediate contact with the temperance question. At the recent election an honest en leavour was m.idi) to give effect to the above policy, as was evident from the varied political opinions of the candidates nominated by prohibition leagues and other temperance organisations, hut the effort was futile, and led to the scattering of many votes and the dissipition of considerable voting powor. It i« alleged in support of the existing arrangement for akine the voting all on one day that it provides for a fuller and more satisfactory expression of public opinion than if the local opt'on vote ba taken on a day by itself This. I think, is a mistake. Lot a special day be appointed for the polling, let the issue 1> J ' lice me or no license," let the majority of vot.es cast determine the ques1 tion, and I shall be great ly mistaken if there will i be »ny lack of interest in the proceedings or any failure on the part of the peoyle to come to the ' poll. I have now briefly touched ou the several questions or legislative prop for the consideration of the convention this afternoon, and now leave them for fuller discussion by the representatives present.— (Applause.) , Mr A. S adams noved — " That this convau- | tion wequeit P>vrli>u:nent to make provision ! daring next session for the taking of a colonial vot"> on prohibition " Tho raobion wis carried unanimously without discmsioii. Mr P. ff. Taylor, M.H.R. (Chriatchurjh), who was applauded on ris;iu, said they very frequently heard the argumiufc raised iii sup1 pore of a (specified majority of the liquor party ! that in other niat.tsrs vi wlrcu mouev questions were concerned a special majority was provided tor, b'lt a spsca! vote was abvndoned in connection >vith til- 1 Wellington Oifcy drainage scheme, involving a vote of £200,003 — (Mr A. S. Adams : " Aud *ihe Duuti.lm aoaiitoirs loau '") — and i' seemed to him that iv future all loans would be r-iis'jd on a vote that would bB a bare majority vote. Ho moved — "Tan*, the convention repeat its demands for a bare majority • voi«\" , The Rev. K. Walkkk seconded the motion.

Mr Wilson' (Toiroi said be desired to point J the CluUia. ass an object Ipmsou to the falseness ;of thf majority vo*o. Tnere ivai there a majority o!: over 300 in favour of no license, and yet the minority could still carry the day. H« thought; t.hat; was a standing disgrace to tho calonv — (App'ause ) Mr J MacGtlhbon (Gore) be'ioved that when once prohibition was given a fair trial and that when th« people rea.lisa-1 the good effects of it they would never go bank on it. — (Hear, hear ) Mr A. S. Adams, nup;>lernent,iDg the remarks of Mr Wilson, gave pu-fci^ulars of the local option pu'ls in the Catlius districb and in the Olntha electorate, and said that the prohibition majority in the Clifcua had not g<me b\ok, but j had actually inor*>aK(»d la Ourmdm every vote that had bean takeu was an incre^sim: voto for prohibition. He thou^ifc the couvnution might take it that the vote for prohibilion was constantly progressing, <md that they might dinmiss from their minds the fealiug that there had bean any revnrtil of public opinion Th a . Ray. F. W Isitt de«red, as some cipilal had been mad 1 ? out .it »■ vot;e of his at the Weslevan Conference ah Welliugt ;n, t j explain the circumstances. Vhr. cnufereace was about to discuss ri;aolut:o:i8 bearing oti the moral right of th* church '.oalln'v m".n engaged in the liquor traffic to hold office in it. The report of the temuerance secret i^y recommended that this question, among others, should bs decided by a oart) mijority vita, and that was immo 'diaVily spizad on for debate by those who would burlr discasßiou on thti main issue. Finally, i partly from diplomacy and p*rLly becine be regarded id ai uuwne to discuss a qu>esti >n of politics at a W'sloyan Copfcreftca chat was composed of all aoi-t™ and conditions of men, thi speaker seaonded a motion ajfainsl the recommendation aud thin got the path clear for a di«eus*ion of the raiuu question. Mr Pat,k (Oaristt-.hurch) retnaukan that thosp people who feared that pr >hibifcion was carried by a bire majjrit.y in one niaee they would be defeated next tune had not a strong faith in their own principles. Ho believed so much in the afcrenjjfch of the principles ho bald that he believed the voS;-> for prohibition would grow largnr instead of smaller. Mr BtJRNAnD pointed out that a prohibition vofcp ha^, attPi- some yeatM, been reversed in counties in Canada. H-j maintained that if prohibition was to be a granri sucse?B thßy musl. have ifc from cad to end, and not; in pitches. Tne Rev. F. W. Isrrr raised the point whether several comities ii Oanada had not repealed the Scott Ac', bee '.use its enforcement lay with the Dominion -minorities, and because ( of their re f uaa! to administer. I The motion was th-u ]>ub and carried. Oa tlif» m'jti')'.\ of J W Jaoo, saconcled by Mr A. R. Adajis, io was unanimously resolved — " That, iv tno opiaion of this convention, all clubs in which liquor is supplied on .' sale should be brought under the provisions of tha act regulating the Sd.li of intoxicating ■ bsveraßfis." Mr Mac(?ibbon~ (Gore), in moving to the rffoeb that licensiiig revenue sfaoulii b-» made colonial, 3aid it was a bugbear tn?.n vra=i hold out agains'j thim at; general elections, " W lat are you going to do for want of this revenui?" He believed it would be the moans of increasing ' the prohibition vote it the revonuts were m»de coloaiai. Mr Nicol (Oatnaru) seconded the motion, and fdmarkpd that Oamiru derived batween £590 and £600 from licenning revenue, and ifc was said th*t nhe town could not iio withoafc it. ; Mr T. E Tayi.o* s<\id thia should really point out to the convention the extreme folly of giving counWianoe t<> smy proposed reform such a» the Got^'inburg oyslein, bacause ) licensing rwime was the bisjges 1 ; barrie.- lo the carryin \ of prohibiDiaa refru-m, -uid if rhey were to adop 1 ; any sc'ieoie of licencing r«fo.m they would b-i giving the p«oplo a fi'i.mcial interest in the traffic and hi allowing the tr^fHi to sink its root 1 ; d-eper. Ho ur^'ed i.hir. <vn»n the Ij'ioal Gov-irnrnenr Bill cirne before PA'liiin"nt

th^y should mike a determined effort to get rid j of licensing r^v^uue sis lo^al revenue. It was ' au immoral thing to take rdvuuue from such a. \ soarce.

The Rsv. F. W. Tsitt banl "he vote of the Canterbury Prohibition Csnncil was adverse to the suggestion bcsforu 'he convention, *nd ho thought Mr T. E. Taylor took part in the discussion and agreed with the alo)03t unanimous >

T vote.— (Mr Taylor :«' No.") It was felt there that the proposal was a sacrifice of principle to policy. They recognised to the full the difficulj ties about the looal revenue cry, and they felt! they had no right to 6ay anything aboub revenue. The whole thing was immoral, and , they did not get out of the difficulty by making the revenue colonial. j Mrs Newton (Chris fcchnrch) said one of the points that was taken in Christchurch was thub if this revenue was made colonial rather than local all the municipalities would be given & j grant from the colonial fund, and, as that would i be a certain grant, they would ohng to it more j strongly than they clung now to what was nn uncertain revenue. Mr A. C. Begg said it had always seemed to | him that the licensing revenue had been used ; as a bribe to the local bodies and ratepayers to , maintain the liquor traffic. In Roslyn, where they had year* ot flghtiug. that was always the cry that was raised, even by many of those who favoured prohibition. However, Roilyn did vote prohibilion, and the bnrough did nob lose much by losing that local revenue. — (Hemr.)" He was of opinion that this reveuue, instead of! being made local revenue, should ba put into some npecial fund, which should be used for the purpose of oharitable aid — (Voices : " No, no.")— instead of levying a contribution on the local bodies. There was no doubt) the necessity for a great deal of charitable aid urose through the ravages of the liquor traffic, whioh, he baliaved, caused the necessity for two-thirds of the misery that called for charitable aid. Mr Palk wished to enter a very strong pro* t2?b against the suggestion which hikd just been thrown out. — (Hear ) Apart from higher considerations, the suggestion was wholly illogical and übte'ly inconsistent. He had never heard such a proposition in his life. "Were they satit fled, he asked, to have their roads and footpath*) and their charitable institutions made with thß blood of victims of strong drink ? It was a suggestion that every ono of them should Bcont They did not want to h»vo their charitable institutions aud lunatic asylums supported from the money that was spsnt on drink traffic. These things existed because of the drink traffic, and for them to take money that had created these institutions and spend it in -upport of these institutions seemed to him simply absurd. — (Hear.) Regarding the main question, he held that if they resolved that licensing revenue thould ba made colonial they were displaying weakness, *s they wore concurring iv the revenue objection that iru raised by the other *ide. Mr A. C. Bugs, in personal explanation, eaid he had been misrepresented as to what he said. Hn had always advocated prohibition ; but, if not prohibition, ho said the revenue question should not bs used as a bribe to people to vote against prohibition. — (Hear.) The Rev. Mr Nichol (Hampden) s*id that a few inquiries he had nude warranted him in spying that if the reveuue was t*o remain at all it was better that it should be transferred to the Colonial Treasury. Ho found that a good many farmers in the country decided thtir votss on the question of revenue. Their wives, aorn, and daughters all talked it over with the head of the household, and, concluding that tner would have to pay heavier taxes if the local revenue was done away with, they went on voting against th^ prohibition cause. Votes would not btt .iffncted in the same way if the reveuue were transferred to the colonial Treasury. Attar further discussion, in whioh Messrs John Wilson, Dash (Waimate), and Binnecman, aud Mrs Glirke (,C<wersham) took part, The Rw E Walickr moved us &nam<nii-' raent — "That this mooting protects agamst any revenue being derived from the sale of liquor, contending that ib in immoral to derive aiiv revenue from that which debaqe* ne people, but that as long cs any revenue is derived from that source it should bo colonial and not local." If they wjco to m^tefl a successful effort — which he doubted — to jet the revenue transferred from a local to the Colonial Treasury, they should give sjiuc reason other than >c would help'thoir sida at the voting, and ha thought they could find a better reason. The licensing revenue t/as »v unequal s mrcs of revenue to the local bodies, and tho only way to deal with the local bodies equitably would bo through the Local Government Bill, hy aubstibuUng au equivalent for the existing licemG fees, and dividing ib acaording to population through the colony. Mr U'j'fLEY seconded the amendment, in favour of which Mr MacOibbon withdrew his motiou. ..

Air W. Wardrop said Mr Walker's proposal could only be carried on the understanding that a Government aubsidy should replace the license fees, for the taking away of the licensing revenue from the municipalities would mean to most of them a rate of another 6d in the pound. He thought il would bo far better to leave ttuncja a* '-hey were, and let; the people vote out the traffic from their districts. Mr F. Gkaham moved, a3 an amendment;, the omission from Mr Walker's substantive motion of all words after the word " peopla." They all felb that license was wrong, and, therefore, the revenue derived from license muse necessarily bs w/oug. Ria proposal was that thoy should leave the whole question of revenue ouc of con« sideratioo. The Rev. F. W. Isitt seconded the amendment He confessed that he- was a little bit pained at the tons of expediency th*t ruled the discussion. They knew that chey had to fight against selfish interests, and he mentioned thafc a pillar of fche church in Chrisfcchnrch had complained to him of what Mr Taylor had done to his prpxierby in making tho Dime of George dlreab in Ouri.stchuroh stink not only througnout New Zo..Und bub also throughout Victoria. The street was a foul cesspool of immorality, and he thauked G'>d that Mr Taylor did make its name stink — (applause), — and he oeggsd them, if it retarded their reform for a quarter of a century, noi to talk about expediency for a single moment or to talk about the money question.— (Applause.) Mr A. S. Adams observed that the Canterbury convention iv 1394- affirmed the principle wfcieh was now propoa»u. As a ratepayer of Dunediu he protested against the licensing revenue being put into the coffers of the city to relieve him from rates which he should pay. The only way in which the position of the ratepayers in all the municipalities throughout the colony could be equalised was by the payment of this reveuue into the colonial chest. The ratepayers had no voice in the continuancfc, reduction, or destruction of t'ae liquor traffic, a» that responsibility now rested with the electors, and h-j submitted that tho electors having rid the ratepayers of the power should ;.lso rid them of the dirty money. — (Hear.) It; did not necessarily follow that the local bodies would have to be subsidised if the revenue wai* m'ide local, and if they were to be cub-idisid it did not necessarily follow that they would ba subsidise! from liquor money Mr Jago explained, Itsj his paper should convey an erroui.ou« lrnpres-iijn, thai he did nob approve of liquor-derivi d revenue^and ia 1877 wheu there was first a pi-opjiaito impose a beer duty in New Zealand he strongly opposed it.

Mr A. S. Malcolm (Kelso), in napporting Mr Walker's motion, said the fear of increased taxation in the Ciutha had not Been justified.

as of three local bodies that were affected, only one—the Jlapanui Borough Council— had increased its rates, and in that case it had been found that the [raising of the rates was unnecestfary. Mr Graham's amendment was then put and lost on a show of hands, and Mr Walker's 'resolution was carried by a large majority. On the motion of Mr Adams, seconded by Mr T. B. Taylor, the convention repeated its demand for the abolition of bottle, conditional anal packet licenses.

Tae Rev. F. W. Isitt asked leave to place on record, on behalf of the majority of the Canterbury convention, his protest against the resolution respecting the licensing revenue. ' The Chairman ruled that a delegate could only have a personal protest recorded. On the motion of Mr Adams the convention went into committea to discuss tho remaining Bubjects mentioned in Mr Jago'a paper.