The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1889.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 4560, 8 June 1889, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, JUNE 8, 1889.

Dk. Deysdale, a very old and respected resident of Port Chalmers, and chairman of the local licensing committee, made some remarks at the recent meeting of the committee which were thought worth referring to m a Press Association message a few days ago. Yesterday we published the full text of what Dr. Drysdale said on the occasion. It appears that the committee had previously held a consultation, and that he hecaine their spokesman before the public. The previous licensing committee at Port Chalmers had been what Dr Drysdale called " practically a Blue Ribbon committee," and it was probably owing to that fact tbat it was thought advisable for the new committee to make a statement as to the lines upon they considered that their duties should he carried out. We confess that the necessity or even the advisability of the announcement does not strike us as being very clear. Persons interested m the licensing question would have speedily discovered the bent of tho committee by their acts, and the good taste of publicly aud directly denouncing the methods of their predecessors m office may well be questioned. But, nevertheless, having said so much, we are ready to admit that an important portion of DrDrysdale's remarks commends itself to our judgment, and m fact embodies opinions which we have always held m relation to the present licensing law. Sir William Fox and other strong supporters of the extreme temperance platform, see not the smallest objection to utilising the licensing committees as machinery, not merely for controlling and regulating the liquor traffic, but for totally destroying it, if that were possible. We recollect that snme years ago the New Zealand Alliance issued a manifesto which, amongst other things, expressly pointed it out as a duty that temperance men should endeavour to secure the election of temperance committees, and that thn latter, or those members of them who had been elected on the temperance ticket, should vote straight against the granting of any licenses. We forget the exact words of the manifesto, butabont its purport there can be no doubt. The committees were, as far as possible, to be made engines for the destruction of the liquor traffic. Since that time the advice has been repeated on more than one occasion, and we presume that the New Zealand Alliance still recommends thoroughgoing prohibition tactics. The result, however, has not been satisfactory from an alliance standpoint. The ill-judged ardour of the extreme temperance men has to a large extent defeated their object. To avoid the tyranny of committees pledged to grant no licenses, the temperate but not teetotal part of the community has very often been forced into alliance with those who have no sympathy with what i 3 good m the temperance movement. Teetotallers would have secured a far larger representation on licensing committees if the community had not dreaded a vexatious interference with the necessary amount of hotel accommodation. The Port Chalmers Licensing Committee through their chairman expressed the opinion that no person who is notoriously pledged to do his utmost to abolish the liquor traffic should be eligible for a seat on the licensing bench, the reason being that the machinery of the Licensing Act was never intended by the legislature for the suppression of the liquor traffic, but for its regulation and restriction within due limits. No reasonable man can deny that the Port Chalmers committee were right na to the intention of Parliament. The Act speaks for itself, and its meaning must be gathered from its own contents and from nothing else. A committee-man who enteiß on his work with a predetermination to vote against each application as it comes before him has m reality blindly made up his mind to couimita grave wrong. £He has been elected to administer an Act of Parliament, and instead of doing his duty he undertakes the work of v. legislator, for to refuse all licenses ia virtually to repeal the statute. But there is no need for tho remedy proposed by Dr Drysdale. He said that the Act ought to be so amended as to prevent these rampant prohibitionistß obtaining scats on licensing committees. But the ratepayers can settle the question for themselves without applying to the legislature. If they choose to elect reasonable committees, prepared to administer the Act fairly m the Interests of all parties concerned, nothing more is necessary. As a, fact that is what is almost invariably done, and if a prohibitionist succeeds m obtaining a seat on a committee he finds himself surrounded by men who intend to administer the law and not to set it on one side. Even on the late Port Chalmers committee, which Dr Drysdale said was " practically a Blue Ribbon committee," the prohibitionists must have had no weight, for the licenses wero granted pt-etty much as usual. When the bulaace of public opinion throughout the colony greuMy predominates m ijivour of forbidding the traffic m intox.'cating liquor, the day of tho prohibitionists' triumph will have come, but aa yet they possess little power for mischief, and such as they do possess is ia consequence of the apathy of the great body of tho ratepayers, many thousands of whom take no interest whatever m tho committee elections.