THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1880.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XIII, Issue 3636, 25 June 1880, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1880.

In yesterday's issue we referred to an article in our Auckland contemporary animadverting on the action of the Thames Licensing Commissioners in the closing of half-a-dozen so-called hotels. We, stated that we had riot space then to give extracts showing the utter absurdity of the arguments used, the fallacy on which they are founded, and the injury they are calculeted to inflict upon a gentleman who has gained the respect and esteem of all classes of this community during the short time we have been favoured with his presence as presiding magistrate. We have already stated that we have not interfered in the action of those, persons. who, from interested motives, have striven to bring the administration of justice at the Thames into contempt, believing that it was merely some spasmodic action which would soon find its level. We are quite sure that the justice-loving public of the Thames will not countenance this movement to censure a magistrate whose only fault is that lie refuses to prostitute his office to the claims of certain individuals, who have too long held a kind of terrorism over the district, and have not scrupled to tamper with the fountain of justice. But when we find a journal at a distance enlisted in such a cause, and. pandering to the meanest accusation to bolster up such conduct, we can no longer refrain from oomment. If these people mean mischief, it is time all lovers of justice, all who cling to the purity of its administration, defended acausoso shamelessly assailed by men who have been elevated to positions which demand the exercise of nobler principles. Our contemporary sets out with an assertion which is contrary to the spirit of the Licensing Act when he says the refusal of the licenses was "entirely in excess of the powers of the Commissioners," We commend the following clauses of the bill now before the House, based upon the Act in force, to the perusal,of our contemporary

. The Licensing Committee shall exercise their discretion in granting or refusing any. certificate for any description of licensc, and shall not be obliged to grant the same merely because tho requirements of the law as to accommodation or personal fitness of the applicant arc fulfilled, unless in their opinion there is a necessity for tho public-house or other establishment for tho sale of intoxicating liquors, for . which application is made.

The objections that may be taken to the renewal of a license may be

That the promises aro not maintained at the required standard, or that the licensing thereof is not required in tlio neighbourhood, or that tho premises are in the immediate vicinity of a place of public worship, hospital, school, &e. i

This is the discretionary power of a Licensing BoiicU Yfhiph our contcmpov{iyy ami his informants seek to ignore. Kfl clauht it would suit the brewers to see sucli an authority swept away. It undermines the compensation clauses which porsons interested would like to see inserted, but which the Legislature will never permit, Wo have seen how the plosing of apologies for accommodation houses, mere grog shanties, has excited the indignation of the brewer—who is not content to transfer ]iis legitimate trade to decent houses. His first step was by covert action to induce the Borough Council to endorse a resolution of condemnation on the shallow pretext that the revenue of the municipality would' be reduced by £240 a year, Armed with this resolution the person aggrieved intends to proceed to Wellington to lay his case before ministers. The next step was to assist in the circulation .of a petition asking for the removal of a Magistrate, who dared to follow the dictates of his own superior sense, rather than be led bliudfolded into acquiescence because

the interest of an influential citizen was compromised by his fairness. No wonder the petition is circulated stealthily; although those who countenance it may yet " blush to find it fame," or ill fame, if we mistake -not the fairness and honesty of the Thames community, "We may refer to thia petition at greater length in another issue, but will quote the second clause, which is as follows

That as Chairman of the Licensing j3encli, the saitl Harry Kcnrick holds peculiar ami eccentric views, and intimated, his intentiono£ reducing, ancl has been instrumental in reducing, the number of publican's licenses in the district, thereby depriving the Borough and County of a large source of revenue, which your petitioners submit is wholly uncalled for.

If these are " peculiar and eccentric " views, then we can only 'say they aro shared in by every sensible member of the community, and certainly by every stranger visiting the district, who cannot fail to notice the preponderance of ill-oonditioned licensed houses in proportion to the population of the place. The fact is these houses were originally licensed when the population was more migratory, when there was a large influx of visitors and the genus digger; but we have now settled down into a staid mining community, and are not subject to the fluctuations of an alluvial field, so that half the number of hotels is sufficient. But we dony that the places for which licenses were refused were entitled to the. name of hotels, They were mere drinking hovels, whore only the landlord benefited, provided he got his rent, of which we are doubtful. As to the paltry loss to the local bodies, that is merely used as a lever by designing and interested persons. Our Auckland contemporary has evidently perused the petition, because we find a reference to " Commissioners with an cccentric conception of their duties," the being ignorant of the discretionary power conferred by legislation.. The article of which wo complain contains two charges, after the fallacy of the other argument has been exposed, and these charges are founded on an impression that some ill-fesling has been engendered between the Bench and the brewer, and that only the houses of this particular individual are visited "with condemnation. Now, this is as true as the other insinuation, and both are on a par with the rest of the article. The hotels closed were not all the property of tho injured individual in question; and if there was any ill-feeling, such as that referred to, it was -all on the side of the brewer, who is notorious, for. his pronounced dislike of all and sundry who will not bow down and worship him. His latest exhibition of this nature is his refusal to patronise' a local, . steamer long as one of tho Licensing Commissioner's names is affixed to the timetable as agent .thereof. But to enter upon this phase of the. question would fill up more space than we can devote to it, therefore wo shall not. multiply such examples. We deny that tha houses closed possessed the accommodation required by the Act, and our con' temporary should be more careful upon whose authority such rash and untruthful statements are made as those upon which this article is based. The .connection' between the morals of this community, the purity of the administrationof justice in the district, and the sordid motives of the' Herald's' in« formant, rests far too deeply below the surface to be flipped off with a fewsentences of ipse dixit; and, for the information of our contemporary, we repeat that its authority in this instance is entirely untrustworthy, and a superstructure of error is built upon insinuations base and calumnious.