LIQUOR BILL.

Colonist, Volume LVIII, Issue 14540, 18 October 1917, Page 6

LIQUOR BILL.

HOUSE OKITiOiSES AMENDMENTS. DIVISION ON roSTPONEAIJENT CLAUSE.

(From Our Parliamentary Correspondent.)

Washington', (k;t. 17. The amendments made- by the Legislative. Council- in' the , Halo- or Liquor [Restriction-Bill name up i'or eoncsidera•bion by the House of .Representatives to-night. The Promier w.id he. would move to agree to the amendment inserting December Ist instead-or November jis the date for the coming into operation oi: the Bill. Mv Anderson: 'What is the reason for that?.. Mr Massey: F am informed by the Segal advisers of t!;o Government that it is quito impossible to conform with all the of the Bill by the Ist of next "month. The Premier went on to explain that the reason why he asked tho House- to disagree with the .several other clauses was' because he was informed they required redrafting, as they did. not give effect lo the intension of the Council. It h(\<\ boon pointed out. in nr.li/.section with clause. 4b "that vr'!u;l.(--sale houses and brewers found it ni'c.-ssarv lo deliver wines and spirits to strainers hot ore 9 o'clock. Mr Fsil.l: Thai's lair. A'ui make no objection. Air Massey raid that clause &•. rMerentiated between hotels and oiu!>s, bub the (iGvonuv.aiii■• proposed to put'both on the !-:imp''Voolinc;.■' (Her1.;-, hear.) Air Isitt: Will that all'eot HoHamy'sr Mr Massey replied that n ivns the intention in ;i!i]/ly the Bill to Mt-ilamy's, but .if Beilnmy's vyas .not onvered the law would iie ;s mended next session. The effect of <lause 4d, continued the "Premier, v. ould be-that, i.v a man in-x-itcd a snest to a hotel dinner, he could consume liquor, but not allow his guests in consume ;i!echoi A man should ho allowed -alcoholic, liqr.or as part oi his iioiiß ikle menl. Ms--. WiUV.nj declared that. ho. was a great Vliovcr in the "scrn;j a'i paper." .LicoiiHo? nut till the end of Jian\ and ,;the laM poll gave ti.::oi;.s?es continuance. His uo-licei'se friends had imido a-great stevp i'orward. and gained a groas deal Therefore it would be fair not to make a change until June. He moved that June be inserteJ} in place of December. Mr Speaker ruled that June could Rot bf. inserted by tiie House ut that stage, the <:iily course to pursue being to disagree v.-ith the Council's ameudxuents. • Mr Jsitt pro tested strongly against .any alteration of the time at all, contending that the proposed extension to -^December vvns for no other reason than to give the Honor trado another month Mr Webb spoke against the whole oarly closing proposal. ■ The Premier interjected: "Disagreement v.ith this amendment tor Docem•Ler wi!l pvobabiv meni> that- wo shall go back to November "Vjpt." On ji division the amendment was negatived.

Against tlie amendment, 50: Allen, Anderson. Arstey, Buddo, Craigie, [Oickie, Dickson. (Chalmws), Dickson Kll, Field (Nelson), Field (Otaki), Findlay, Eraser. Guthric, Hanan, Harris, Henare, Hervies, liind.mavssh, Hornsby, Hunter, tsitt, Lee, '-McCombs, Mander, Mass»ey ; ONewman (Wellington), iN'ewmf.n (Ransitikei), Ngata. Nosworthy, Okey, Parr, Pearce, Poland, Poiiuae, Pooie, Khoties (Ellesmere), Rhodes (Thames), Russell, Sidey, Smith (Pahiatua), Sylce's, Talbot, Thomp&'o-n, VeJtch, Walker, Wilkinson, •Wright, Voting. x

For the amendment, 24: Messrs Bollard, Br.oK'ii, Kuick. Carroll, Colvin Fletcher, Forbes, Glover, Herdman, Hudson, Jennings, McCallum, MacDonald, M"yers. I^irata, Payne, Scott s Smith (Waimavino, Stutham Thacker, Ward, Webb, "Wilford, Witty.