The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1907. LICENSING LEGISLATION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13264, 19 April 1907, Page 4

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1907. LICENSING LEGISLATION.

The attitude of the "Timaru Herald' in, respect to licensing legislation lias been vindicated in a quarter from which we had tlie least expectation of securing support. At the meeting of ' ilia No-License League last. evening: ib was announced that at tlis la&t .Easter convention held in Christ church, it was decided to .seek various amendments to ;■ the law" which run: very much .in the • direction w-4 advocated prior, to the last local option poll. The suggested alterations include the excision of the reduction issue from the voting papers, and provision for colonial option in which 'it is desired to ! make a bare majority effective. Theoretically' the demand for the bare majority is unanswerable in a democratic country like New Zealand, but that consideration does hot deter us from thinking that it would be injudicious to remove the safeguard wliich the legislature has provided against rapid alterations' of hotel conditions in tlio colony. We admit.,, of course, that the three-fifths majority . is . a great handicap upon the advocates of lio-license, but we cannot , escape the soundness of the old "contention that it- is a wise thing, before ' entexing upon - such a change in the social life of the community as the abolition of the hotels, to make sure that the .change is assured of some degree ;of permanence, and that the country will not see-saw backwards and forwards between.- prohibition and the existence, of ~open ■■■■bars.., It is possible to push even democratic pvin=ciples too far,; and we believe 'that it would be; a.\sirious mistake to insist upon the rule of the bare,majority in the case: of the option poll, ; whether that poll is taken on a local -or on a colonial basis. Nor do' wo think-it at.-all likely 'that either Parliament 'or tlia 'country will agree to replace the three-fifths by a- bare majority. People- have' becoma accustomed to: the . larger margin,- and recognise its practical wisdom 'quits, as fully as they •recognise.•••.tli« theoretical objections that may benrged -against it,, andi we fancy that there will be'•little disposition to fall in'with this particular. item in the amendments proposed by the leaders of the!'nolicense party. No doubt the idea of the change has' been suggested by the rapid growth .of tlie vote, for no-license, which on the\basis of colonial option with the bare majority,- would have carried the day at "the last:, poll. A reference to the -Year Book shows the figures for continuance and no-license at successive polls to have been respectively:

Year. Continuance No-License. 1896 139,580 98,312 1899 142,443 ' 118,575 1902 148,449 151,524 1905 182,884 198,768 The logic of these figures has no doubt weighed with the leaders of the party in advising the convention at Christchurch to seek an amendment of the law in the direction of securing colonial option by a bare majority. But assuming that colonial option was acceptable to the people, the provision for a, three-fifths majority, which, for the reasons we have given, appeals to us as a wise guarante? of permanence, would at most mean only a temporary postponement of the goal the no-license party have in view. For our' own part we have advocated colonial, in- | stead of local option long before the'lftte'i Easter convention, though our' reasons for | so doing are probably widely divergent, from those of our new and unexpected supporters. Wo believe, in the fir»l/ place, | ,that colonial is preferable to local option because 5t would destroy what we cannot buti consider a dangerous anomaly—that is, 'the- c-rection into a crime in one "part of the colony, of what is perfectly legal in another part. To our mind it is a. grave evil that the law should not be uniform from end to end of the colony, and that proceedings which' are legitimate in Timaru or Dunedin. should be prohibited in Oamaru or Ashburton. The removal of that anomaly is our first reason for supporting the institution of qolonial for local option. Our next reason is the belief that colonial option would secure a more honest vote than is obtained under local option, which allows a man to practice vicarious virtue by voting for the suppression of hotels while.he retains the liberty to secure private supplies of liquor. We do not know whether the no-licens-?. party, in/the event of colonial option being' successful; would prohibit the importation of alcohol, but .even if they carried into the larger field the strenuous opposition they raised to Clause 9 when the late Premier offered to apply it to no-license districts, it. is obvious that the difficulties in the way of securing private supplies of liquor would be greatly increased if people % had to send outside the colony for it. Practically speaking there would then be no room for the moderate man for whom Mr Fowlds and Mr Bedford, pleaded when Clause 9 was being debated in the House of Representatives. Under colonial option, every person who voted for no-license would be voting for virtual prohibition, and we doubt whether many of those whohave supported no-license in the past

would be equal to the sacrifice. In regard to tlie excision of the reduction issue, wo arc filly in accord with the new altitude of tiie -convention. Wo li:i.ve always opposed it as a, piece of injustice, and we are glad to see that there is at last some prospect of its disappearance.