REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LICENSED HOUSES.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 297, 2 April 1896, Page 12

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LICENSED HOUSES.

Under the Alcoholic Liquors Sale Control Act of last session, provision is made for the taking of a vote for the reduction of licensed houses in the respective licensing districts of the colony. This vote in future will be taken simultaneously with that provided to decide the question of prohibition. It is a strange hallucination on the part of the extreme teetotal people of New Zealand, and elsewhere, to suppose that a reduction in thenumber of hotels,in any one district of the colony, willhavethe effect of lessening the amount of alcoholic liquors consumed by the people in the districts where such reduction is effected. The practical experience applied to the case (or cases) under consideration goes to prove that in many —in almost every instance —reduction of the number of licensed houses in a city ward, in a borough, or in a town district, has the effect of increasing the consumption of liquor, which is easily accounted for, and in this way:—The social conditions of the people of New Zealand are unquestionably conducive to conviviality, and the law of custom, as prescribed by the “old hands” who assisted to lay down the foundation of the colony, has declared that “ shouting ” was one of the most consequential clauses in their customary enactment, and how has this ancient law been reduced to practice. Take, as a rule, five old settlers, who are attending an up-country sale. They, recognising the customary law, would all go to the hotel in the place—if but one existed —and ere they parted each would shout for the others, and at least five alcoholic stimulants would be imbibed by each. If there had been two hotels in the place the probabilities are that three would have gone to one hotel, and two to the other, and hence, instead of taking five drinks, three would have had three whiskies respectively on the lines indicated, and two one each From our personal knowledge of what has been done in this colony re the reduction of licenses in certain localities, we are justified in stating that the only effect has been to give a big premium to licensed houses allowed to continue, and to affect this at the expense of those persons whose license has been taken away. We have the records of a case now before us illustrative of this fact. In one of our large cities therewas a house whose owners drew thirty-six gallons of beer per month. It does not affect the principle to say the house was well conducted ; at any rate, it is safe to say that no formalcomplaint,much less a conviction, had been recorded against it. The licensing committee, however, in its wisdom (?) decided that the house was not wanted in the locality, and for this reason refused to re-issue the license; consequently the house was closed. But what happened? Just exactly what every sensible person anticipated, viz, one house within a few paces of the closed house increased its sale of beer by four hogsheads per week, and three others within a stone’s throw by six hogsheads collectively- Thus it will be seen that to presumedly the same people three or more hogsheads of beer per week was sold, owing to the closing of one licensed house in a district, and consequent upon the crowding of more people together in one building. On this subject we were recently talking to an old settler, who was in the habit of attending the up-country sales held at Papakura and other places

Our informant states that at one period one of the two hotels in Papakura was burnt down, and the parties that formerly associated in “ sections ” in the two hotels congregated together in the one, with the inevitable result of more drinking, associated with every toast proposed to reconcile the parties, who on previous occasions, drew distinguishing lines between those who assembled in the house reduced to ashes, and the settlers and dealers who had always used the hotel then in existence. In fact, history, observation, and experience go to prove that the only effect of reducing the number of hotels in a district is to lesssen the accommodation to the travelling public by removing trade emulation, and to increase the consumption of alcoholic liquors by causing more people to asemble together under the same roof.