Temperance Meeting

Southland Times, Issue 12773, 5 December 1893, Page 3

Temperance Meeting

The Rev. E. Walker, lecturer for the New Zealand Alliance, addressed a public meeting in the Temperance Hall yesterday evening, Mr Baxter presiding. Mr Walker congratulated the. audience upon the splendid results, from a temperance point of view, of the recent elections. While six of. their friends would not return to Welling ton, no less than twenty-four of their ol opponents had not been elected, amond these being some whose energy and personag influence as opponents were very consider! able. Among the new members there werenineteen friends of the cause, one pro-; nounced opponent, and eight doubtfuls; the result, as far as he could at present deterniine, being 37 pronounced friends, 21 opponents, and ,12 uncertain. Of the 21 oppo- ' rientsj ‘2O itfer6 ‘ judged by their attitude in tKe last Parliament, but probably'political exigencies had now converted some of these into friends.’ He congratulated the women of the colony on the splendid account they had. given of themselves ; they had acted right “ manfully,” much more so than many of the men. That the liquor question was ripe for final satisfactory settlement was evidenced not merely by the overwhelming vote at the recent elections, but also by the amount of legislation upon it attempted in the last session, when not less than seven bills were introduced dealing with it. Two of these were by Mr Fisher—one to abolish tied houses, and the other to prevent the sale of liquor to children ; another was introduced by Mr McGuire to completely prohibit the importation and manufacture of liquor; another, by Mr Earnshaw, to introduce a modification of the Gothenburg system of licensing, which from its failure to make liquor-selling a harmless traffic Sir Wilford Lawson had wittily called the “ Rottenburg system.” The remaining three were the Direct Veto Bill and the Licensing Act Amendment Bill, introduced by Sir Robert Stout, and the Alcoholic Liquor Sale Control Bill, introduced by the Government and passed into law. Their principal concern now was with the latter and the Direct Veto Bill which Sir Robert Stout introduced on behalf of the New Zealand Alliance, for which it had been drafted. The Direct Veto Bill proposed to give to every parliamentary elector a vote on the one simple issue that the traffic in liquor be, or be not prohibited, the prohibition to cover every form of the local traffic, and the vote to be taken on the day of every parliamentary general election, when it would be a full and genuine expression of the public mind ; a majority of those voting to determine the issue. The bill did not do what the Government measure has done, namely, alter the boundaries of licensing districts for the purposes of the Licensing Act, but proposed to take the vote on the one question only over the parliamentary electorates in order to get the use of the parliamentary balls and also to secure a large popular vote. If prohibition were carried the several licensing districts in the electorates would share the benefit, but if not carried the licensing districts, unaltered, would elect their committees and proceed as heretofore under' the Licensing Act or any amendments thereof. The large powers proposed to be conferred by this bill it was anticipated that the new Parliament would soon embody in legislation. There were those who said, “ Give the Government Liquor Act a fair trial,” which meant make no alteration during the new Parliament, and further meant that before the succeeding Parliament could get to work the licensees would have received licenses for a second term of three years. In other words, those who pleaded for a fair trial of this Act were asking the people to defer the exercise of popular control for six years. That Act was entitled an Act to give the people increased control over the granting of licenses, but was far more a publicans’ than a people’s measure. It made eligible to serve on licensing committees such interested persons as publicans' and brewers’ agents, mortgagees of licensed premises, &c., who were before illegible; it made it still possible to grant licensees more than one bar, but repealed the clause of the Licensing Act prescribing fees for extra bars; it provided that a Resident Magistrate should be chairman of the committee, so that if all the elected members of the committee were pledged to refuse all kinds of licenses, which they were not absolutely compelled to grant, the Resident Magistrate as chairman, could grant wholesale and packet licenses in spite of them and of the people who had elected them. In districts where the people carried prohibition, it gave the Colonial Secretary discretionary power *to grant a club license where over fifty people petitioned for it, and prohibited any action against a licensed club for breaches of the licensing law except at the instance of the Colonial Secretary. It transformed what hitherto everywhere throughout the British dominions had been an annual license into a license for three years ; it professed to give the owners of the premises an interest in compelling the licensee to keep the law by providing that three endorsements in three years should disqualify the premises, and then made the provision worthless by adding the words “ unless the committee determine etherwise.” It enlarged the licensing districts for the purposes of the Licensing Act to the boundaries of the Parliamentary electorates, making them in the bulk of totally unworkable for the purposes of effective regulation, and in the interest of the trade facilitating the continuance of the present condition of the traffic. Respecting the local option powers, it provided that if a reduction of licenses was carried, the committee might reduce them by any number nob exceeding one fourth ; so that a committee favouring the trade would do all the Act required, if, in a district containing 30 or 60 licensed houses, they reduced the number by one. It provided further that neither a reduction or prohibition could be carried unless half of those on the roll voted, and, for prohibition, that there should be a three-fifths majority. It thus offered to those who were interested in the trade an inducement to stay away from the poll, and marked off those who voted as opposed to the traffic, thus, Mr Walker contended, effectively destroying the secrecy of the ballot and giving scope for intimidation and coercion ; and it confined the popular vote to accommodation house, publicans’ and bottle licenses, giving no direct popular control over wholesale, conditional, packet and New Zealand wine licenses. Anything the Act conceded to the public was enormously out-weighed by its concessions to the liquor vendors, and it was therefore not surprising that the majority of the candidates who had proposed to the electors that they should give the Act a fair trial had not been returned. The elections had expressed an unmistakable demand for its immediate repeal, and the enactment of complete and effective direct popular control of the liquor traffic, which more than anything beside menaced the public welfare. Mr Walker strongly urged that branches of the W.C.T.U. or women’s political temperance committees should at once be organised in and district in order to canvass thoroughly the women electors in the interests of the temperance vote for both licensing or parliamentary elections. Mr Leggatt moved—“ That in the opinion of this meeting the large number of members returned to Parliament pledged to the repeal of the Alcoholic Liquor Sale Control Act, expresses the demand of the vast majority of the people that the Act should be repealed before it can come into force and licenses be issued under it, and therefore that an extraordinary session of Parliament should be immediately summoned in order that the will of the people may not bo thwarted by effluxion of time.”—This was seconded by Mr E. B. Jones and carried unanimously. Votes of thanks to the speaker and the chairman closed the proce< dings.